Search for: "Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc." Results 1 - 20 of 21
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Nov 2014, 1:29 pm by Kali Borkoski
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. is here. [read post]
10 Nov 2014, 1:08 pm by Oyez Project
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. [read post]
17 Mar 2017, 8:23 pm by Kate Howard
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 16-902 Issue: Whether, where the right to foreclose is extinguished as a matter of law by federal statute (Truth in Lending Act) and a unanimous Supreme Court decision (Jesinoski v Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.), and a homeowner’s home is foreclosed upon by improper foreclosure judgment, a lender can use res judicata to bar examination of an invalid judgment that was barred by federal consumer protection… [read post]
16 Apr 2014, 7:15 pm by Maureen Johnston
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. 13-684 Issue: Whether a borrower exercises his right to rescind a transaction in satisfaction of the requirements of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. [read post]
3 Feb 2015, 4:56 pm by Jordan Pascale, P.L.
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,135 S.Ct. 790 (2015) Exactly three years after borrowing money to refinance their home mortgage, the Jesinoskis sent the lender a letter purporting to rescind the transaction. [read post]
25 Feb 2015, 3:13 am by Amy Howe
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. [read post]
10 Apr 2014, 9:24 am by Maureen Johnston
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. 13-684Issue: Whether a borrower exercises his right to rescind a transaction in satisfaction of the requirements of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. [read post]
23 Apr 2014, 8:50 am by John Elwood
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 13-684, Keiran v. [read post]
13 Jan 2015, 11:55 am by Mark Walsh
Countrywide Home Loans Inc., the Court unanimously ruled in favor of a mortgage borrower in an interpretation of the federal Truth in Lending Act. [read post]
2 May 2014, 12:28 pm by John Elwood
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 13-684 (asking how a borrower exercises his right to rescind a mortgage loan under the Truth in Lending Act), and Yates v. [read post]