Whoa, I just found the reason I said Jesinoskis’ will lose at trial because only one copy of the disclosure gives effective notice of the right to cancel.  Read it and weep, Jesinoskis.  This is what you get for trying to scam the creditor into an undeserved rescission.

Neil Garfield seems to think the notice of rescission instantly voids the mortgage. That idea simply does not ring true.

This just goes to show why I consider it SO IMPORTANT to get the loan-related documents examined by a competent professional, take the causes of action found, and then use them to MORTGAGE ATTACK the injurious members of the lender team for REAL (not imagined and illogical) injuries.  Borrowers should not waste their time on such Mickey-Mouse justifications for rescission as George King did.  For full details on Mortgage Attack, see http://mortgageattack.com.

King v. LONG BEACH MORTGAGE COMPANY, 672 F. Supp. 2d 238 –

Dist. Court, D. Massachusetts 2009
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14765037577933788773

b. Whether Delivery of a Single Copy of the Notice Triggers Extension of Rescission Right to Three Years

Under 12 C.F.R. § 226.23(b)(1), “a creditor shall deliver two copies of the notice of the right to rescind to each consumer.. . .” Even so, the rescission right is extended to three years only “if the required notice or material disclosures are not delivered.” 12 C.F.R. § 226.23(a)(3) (emphasis added). Significantly, the word “notice” appears in the singular. Elsewhere in Regulation Z, the Federal Reserve Board has used the terms “notices” or “two copies of the notice” whenever it wished to convey that more than one notice is required. (See e.g. 12 C.F.R. § 226.19(b)(2)(xi) (“The type of information that will be provided in notices of adjustments and the timing of such notices.”) (emphasis added)). By deliberately choosing to use the singular form “notice” instead of the plural form “notices” or “two copies of the notice,” the Federal Reserve Board intended that delivery of a single copy of the Notice would not trigger an extension of the rescission right. In light of this deliberate choice of words, the default rule of construction that “[w]here appropriate, the singular form of a word includes the plural form and plural includes 251*251 singular,” 12 C.F.R. § 226.2(b)(1), is not appropriate in this context.

It is reasonable to ask why Congress would impose a duty to deliver two copies of the Notice but not extend the rescission right to three years when that duty is breached by delivery of but a single copy. The answer lies in the fact that rescission is not the only remedy for violations of the duties imposed by TILA. Congress envisaged other remedies or “[a]dditional relief. . . for violations of [TILA] not related to the right to rescind.” 15 U.S.C. § 1635(g). In other words, the failure to provide two copies of the Notice still constitutes a violation of TILA for which other remedies (such as damages) may be awarded. Under the plain meaning of Regulation Z, however, this kind of violation simply does not trigger an extension of the rescission right to three years. Accordingly, this aspect of Chase’s motion for summary judgment was GRANTED.