1 (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2014

Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as isbeing done in connect ion with th is case, at the t ime the opin ion is issued.The syllabus const itutes no par t of the opin ion of the Cour t but has beenprepared by the Repor ter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader . See Un ited Sta tes v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

J ESINOSKI ET UX. v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 13–684. Argued November 4, 2014—Decided J anuary 13, 2015

Exact ly three years after borrowing money from respondent Country-wide Home Loans, Inc., to refinance their home mor tgage, pet it ionersLarry and Cheryle J esinoski sent Countrywide and respondent Bank of Amer ica Home Loans, which had acquired Countrywide, a let terpurpor t ing to rescind the t ransact ion. Bank of Amer ica replied, re-fusing to acknowledge the rescission’s va lidity. One year and one daylater , the J esinoskis filed su it in federa l cour t , seeking a declarat ionof rescission and damages. The Distr ict Cour t entered judgment onthe pleadings for respondents, concluding that a borrower can exer-cise the Truth in Lending Act ’s r ight to rescind a loan, see 15 U. S. C. §1635(a), (f), on ly by filing a lawsuit with in three years of the datethe loan was consummated. The J esinoskis’ compla int , filed four years and one day after the loan ’s consummat ion, was ineffect ive. The E ighth Circu it affirmed.

Held : A borrower exercising h is r ight to rescind under the Act need on ly provide wr it ten not ice to h is lender with in the 3-year per iod, not filesu it with in that per iod. Sect ion 1635(a)’s unequivoca l terms—a bor-rower “sha ll have the r ight to rescind . . . by notifying the cred itor . . . of h is in tention to do so” (emphasis added)—leave no doubt tha t re-scission is effected when the borrower not ifies the creditor of h is in-tent ion to rescind. This conclusion is not a ltered by §1635(f), wh ich states when the r ight to rescind must be exercised, but says noth ing about how that r ight is exercised. Nor does §1635(g)—which sta tes that “in addit ion to rescission the cour t may award relief . . . not re-lat ing to the r ight to rescind”—support respondents’ view that rescis-sion is necessar ily a consequence of judicia l act ion. And the fact that the Act modified the common-law condit ion precedent to rescission a t

2 J ESINOSKI v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.

Syllabus

law, see §1635(b), hardly implies that the Act thereby codified rescis-sion in equ ity. Pp. 2–5.

729 F. 3d 1092, reversed and remanded.

SCALIA , J ., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court .

_________________

_________________

1 Cite as: 574 U. S. ____ (2015)

Opin ion of the Cour t

NOTICE: This opin ion is subject to formal revision before publica t ion in theprelim inary pr in t of the United Sta tes Repor ts. Readers a re requested tonot ify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Cour t of the United States, Wash-ington , D. C. 20543, of any typograph ica l or other formal er rors, in ordertha t cor rect ions may be made before the prelim inary pr int goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 13–684

LARRY D. J ESINOSKI, ET UX., PETITIONERS v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

[J anuary 13, 2015]

JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opin ion of the Cour t .

The Truth in Lending Act gives bor rowers the r igh t to rescind cer ta in loans for up to three years a fter the t rans-act ion is consummated. The quest ion presented is whether a bor rower exercises th is r igh t by providing wr it ten no- t ice to h is lender , or whether he must a lso file a lawsu it before the 3-year per iod elapses.

On February 23, 2007, pet it ioners Lar ry and CheryleJ esinoski refinanced the mor tgage on their home by bor -rowing $611,000 from respondent Countrywide HomeLoans, Inc. Exact ly th ree years la ter , on February 23,2010, the J esinoskis mailed respondents a let ter purpor t -ing to rescind the loan. Respondent Bank of Amer ica Home Loans replied on March 12, 2010, refusing to acknowledge the va lidity of the rescission. On February24, 2011, the J esinoskis filed su it in Federa l Distr ict Cour t seeking a declara t ion of rescission and damages.

Respondents moved for judgment on the pleadings, wh ich the Dist r ict Cour t granted. The cour t concluded that the Act requ ires a borrower seeking rescission to filea lawsu it with in three years of the t ransact ion ’s consum-

2 J ESINOSKI v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.

Opin ion of the Court

mat ion. Although the J esinoskis not ified respondents of their in tent ion to rescind with in tha t t ime, they did not file their first compla in t unt il four years and one day a fter the loan ’s consummat ion. 2012 WL 1365751, *3 (D Minn., Apr . 19, 2012). The E ighth Circu it a ffirmed. 729 F. 3d 1092, 1093 (2013) (per cur iam).

Congress passed the Tru th in Lending Act , 82 Sta t . 146,as amended, to help consumers “avoid the un in formed useof credit , and to protect the consumer against inaccura te and unfa ir credit billing.” 15 U. S. C. §1601(a). To th is end, the Act grants bor rowers the r igh t to rescind a loan“unt il midn ight of the th ird business day following the consummat ion of the t ransact ion or the delivery of the [disclosures requ ired by the Act ], wh ichever is la ter , bynot ifying the creditor , in accordance with regu la t ions of the [Federa l Reserve] Board, of h is in tent ion to do so.”§1635(a) (2006 ed.).* Th is regime grants borrowers anuncondit iona l r igh t to rescind for th ree days, after wh ich they may rescind on ly if the lender fa iled to sa t isfy theAct ’s disclosure requ irements. But th is condit ional r igh tto rescind does not last forever . Even if a lender never makes the requ ired disclosures, the “r igh t of rescissionsha ll expire three years a fter the date of consummat ion of the t ransact ion or upon the sale of the proper ty, wh ichever comes first .” §1635(f). The E ighth Circu it ’s a ffirmance in the present case rested upon its holding in Keiran v. Home Capita l, Inc., 720 F. 3d 721, 727–728 (2013) tha t , un less abor rower has filed a su it for rescission with in three years of the t ransact ion ’s consummat ion, §1635(f) ext inguishesthe r igh t to rescind and bars relief.

That was er ror . Sect ion 1635(a) expla ins in unequivoca l ——————

*Following the events in th is case, Congress t ransferred the author- ity to promulgate ru les implement ing the Act to the Consumer F inance Protect ion Bureau. See Dodd-Frank Wall St reet Reform and Consumer Protect ion Act , §§1061(b)(1), 1100A(2), 1100H, 124 Sta t . 2036, 2107,2113.

3 Cite as: 574 U. S. ____ (2015)

Opin ion of the Cour t

terms how the r ight to rescind is to be exercised: It pro-vides that a borrower “sha ll have the r igh t to rescind . . . by notifying the cred itor , in accordance with regu la tions of the Boa rd, of h is in tention to do so” (emphasis added). The language leaves no doubt tha t rescission is effected when the bor rower not ifies the creditor of h is in tent ion to re-scind. It follows that , so long as the bor rower notifies with in three years a fter the t ransact ion is consummated, h is rescission is t imely. The sta tu te does not a lso requ ireh im to sue with in three years.

Noth ing in §1635(f) changes th is conclusion. Although§1635(f) tells us when the r igh t to rescind must be exer-cised, it says noth ing about how that r igh t is exercised. Our observat ion in Beach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, 523 U. S. 410, 417 (1998), tha t §1635(f) “govern[s] the life of the under lying r igh t ” is beside the poin t . Tha t case concerned a bor rower ’s a t tempt to rescind in the course of a foreclo-sure proceeding in it ia ted six years a fter the loan ’s con-summat ion. We concluded on ly tha t there was “no federa l r igh t to rescind, defensively or otherwise, a fter the 3-yearper iod of §1635(f) has run,” id ., at 419, not tha t there was no rescission unt il a su it is filed.

Respondents do not dispute that §1635(a) requ ires on ly wr it ten not ice of rescission. Indeed, they concede that wr it ten not ice suffices to rescind a loan with in the first th ree days a fter the t ransact ion is consummated. Theyfur ther concede that wr it ten not ice suffices a fter that per iod if the par t ies agree that the lender fa iled to makethe required disclosures. Respondents argue, however ,tha t if the par t ies dispute the adequacy of the disclo-sures—and thus the cont inued ava ilability of the r igh t torescind—then wr it ten not ice does not su ffice.

Sect ion 1635(a) nowhere suggests a dist inct ion betweendisputed and undisputed rescissions, much less that a lawsu it wou ld be requ ired for the la t ter . In an effor t to sidestep th is problem, respondents poin t to a neighbor ing

4 J ESINOSKI v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.

Opin ion of the Court

provision, §1635(g), wh ich they believe provides supportfor their in terpreta t ion of the Act . Sect ion 1635(g) sta tes merely tha t , “[i]n any act ion in which it is determined thata creditor has viola ted th is sect ion, in addit ion to rescis-sion the cour t may award relief under sect ion 1640 of th ist it le for viola t ions of th is subchapter not rela t ing to the r igh t to rescind.” Respondents argue that the phrase “award relief ” “in addit ion to rescission” confirms that rescission is a consequence of judicia l act ion . But the fact tha t it can be a consequence of judicia l act ion when §1635(g) is t r iggered in no way suggests tha t it can on lyfollow from such act ion. The Act contempla tes var ious situa t ions in which the quest ion of a lender ’s compliance with the Act ’s disclosure requirements may ar ise in alawsuit—for example, a lender ’s foreclosure act ion in which the bor rower ra ises inadequate disclosure as anaffirmat ive defense. Sect ion 1635(g) makes clear tha t acour t may not on ly award rescission and thereby relievethe bor rower of h is financia l obliga t ion to the lender , but may a lso grant any of the remedies ava ilable under §1640 (including sta tu tory damages). It has no bear ing upon whether and how borrower-rescission under §1635(a) may occur .

F inally, respondents invoke the common law. It is t rue that rescission t radit iona lly requ ired either tha t the re-scinding par ty return what he received before a rescissioncou ld be effected (rescission a t law), or else that a cour t a ffirmat ively decree rescission (rescission in equ ity). 2 D. Dobbs, Law of Remedies §9.3(3), pp. 585–586 (2d ed. 1993). It is a lso t rue that the Act discla ims the common-law condit ion precedent to rescission a t law that the bor-rower tender the proceeds received under the t ransact ion. 15 U. S. C. §1635(b). But the negat ion of rescission-a t -law’s tender requ irement hardly implies tha t the Act codifies rescission in equ ity. Noth ing in our ju r isprudence,and no tool of sta tu tory in terpretat ion, requ ires that a

5 Cite as: 574 U. S. ____ (2015)

Opin ion of the Cour t

congressiona l Act must be const rued as implement ing itsclosest common-law ana logue. Cf. Astor ia Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Solimino, 501 U. S. 104, 108–109 (1991). The clear import of §1635(a) is tha t a borrower need on lyprovide wr it ten not ice to a lender in order to exercise h is r igh t to rescind. To the extent §1635(b) a lters the t radi-t iona l process for unwinding such a un ila tera lly rescinded t ransact ion, th is is simply a case in which sta tu tory lawmodifies common-law pract ice.

* * *

The J esinoskis mailed respondents wr it ten not ice oftheir in tent ion to rescind with in three years of their loan ’s consummat ion. Because th is is a ll tha t a borrower must do in order to exercise h is r igh t to rescind under the Act ,the cour t below er red in dismissing the complain t . Accord-ingly, we reverse the judgment of the E ighth Circu it andremand the case for fu r ther proceedings consistent with th is opin ion.

It is so ordered.