The Strict Letter Of The Law

I recently read a case entitled, Sumner v MERS.  It was a case involving a refinance of a mortgage in Massachusetts, and was heard before the federal district court in Massachusetts.  In Massachusetts, according to the case, they have a state law that is very similar to the federal TILA as do most states.  Like Section 1026.23 of the current TILA (Title 12 of CFR), the Massachusetts law requires, according to the case, that each borrower receive two (2) copies of the Notice of Right of Rescission at the time of the closing.  

The closing of the refinance by Mr. Sumner took place at his home and he, his wife and the closing attorney were the only parties present.  The facts recited indicate that both Mr. and Mrs. Sumner signed the Notice of Right to Cancel as they call it in Massachusetts.  The Sumners however each only received one copy of the Notice of Right to Cancel, according to the Sumners.

More than four years after the closing of the refinancing, the Sumners brought suit against the original lender and subsequent holders of the loan, claiming a violation of the Massachusetts mortgage loan disclosure law.  The Sumners claimed that in fact they only received one copy each of the Notice of Right to Cancel, and that they were therefore entitled to cancel the refinancing.

The Court found that the Massachusetts statute did not provide any remedy for a lender's failure to provide two copies of the right of rescission, that a failure to provide two copies did not extend the right, and that in fact one copy of the Notice does sufficiently inform the borrower of his right to rescind the loan.  Thus the Court ruled in favor of the defendants and did not insist upon strict adherence to the exact language of the statute.  The fact that other courts arrived at the same conclusion bolstered the Court's decision.

The Court did not place "form" over substance (no pun intended), and did uphold the spirit and intent of the law by insuring that the borrower had adequate notice of his rights.  I see this as a matter of justice being done even though strict compliance with the statute was lacking, and I think the Court came to the proper conclusion.

The foregoing is not intended as legal advise or a legal opinion, but is only an expression of the personal ideas, beliefs and conclusions of the author.  You should seek the assistance of an attorney in any situation involving an alleged infringement of your rights.