MIGUEL A. CINTRON AND RUTH CINTRON, APPELLANTS,
v.
BANKERS TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE OF ADVANTA HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 1993-2 UNDER THE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT DATED AS OF JUNE 1, 1993, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a written acknowledgment of receipt of rescission notices creates only a rebuttable presumption of delivery, and the borrowers sufficiently rebutted this presumption, creating a disputed issue of material fact.
The Cintrons appealed a summary judgment in favor of Bankers Trust in a foreclosure action. The Cintrons argued they did not receive the required two …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Violation Of Truth In Lending Act cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
Miguel and Ruth Cintron appeal a summary judgment in favor of Bankers Trust Company in this foreclosure action. Because there was a disputed issue of material fact regarding a violation of the federal Truth in Lending Act, we reverse.
Miguel and Ruth Cintron correctly argue that they were entitled to receive two copies each of the notice of their rescission rights. See Yslas v. D.K. Guenther Builders, Inc., 342 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (holding that right to receive rescission notice applies separately to each person obligated under transaction). Bankers Trust contends the Cintrons signed a written acknowledgement that they received their copies at closing. In its order, the trial court found that these documents established the Cintrons received two copies.
The Truth in Lending Act provides that “written acknowledgement of receipt of any disclosures required under this subehapter ... does no more than create a rebuttable presumption of delivery thereof.” 15 U.S.C. § 1635(c). In their filed affidavits, the Cin-trons sufficiently rebutted this presumption. Because this created a disputed issue of material fact, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. See, e.g., Stone v. Mehlberg, 728 F.Supp. 1341 (W.D.Mich.1989); Award Lumber & Constr. Co., Inc. v. Humphries, 110 Ill.App.3d 119, 65 Ill.Dec. 676, 441 N.E. 2d 1190 (1982). Accordingly, we reverse the summary judgment granted on the issue of rescission notices.
As to the Cintrons’ second issue, we find no error in that portion of the order granting summary judgment on the alleged violation regarding inadequate disclosure of the amount financed. Therefore, we affirm that portion of the order. Reversed in part, affirmed in part and remanded.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and FULMER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boyle v. Hernando Beach S. Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc., 124 So. 3d 317 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…Ins. Co., 995 So. 2d 547, 549 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Krol. If a reviewing court determines that summary judgment is inappropriate regarding'part of the claim, it may reverse that part and affirm the other part. See, e.g., Cintron v. Bankers Trust Co., 682 So. 2d 616, 616-17 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Sec. Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Baad, 657 So. 2d 10, 10-11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Gloris v. Williams Paving Co., Inc., 556 So. 2d 748, 749 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Boyle argues that the summary judgment evidence in the record does…
Authorities Cited
- San Juan Yslas and Silvestra Yslas v. D. K. Guenther Builders, Inc., 342 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)