Neil Garfield has repeatedly asserted on his blog that all a borrower needs to do is send a rescission notice to the creditor in order to effectuate a rescission, whether or not a TILA violation occurred. And he has tried to con ignorant borrowers into paying $3000 for his useless “TILA RESCISSION PACKAGE” of related legalistic puffery.
Here’s proof that Garfield’s theory of TILA rescission, and of the SCOTUS Jesinoski opinion, is plain wrong.
In 2018 the Jesinoskis appealed the District Court ruling against them, and the 8th Circuirt Court of Appeals held this:
On remand, the district court granted summary judgment, concluding the signed acknowledgment created a rebuttable presumption that the Jesinoskis had received the required number of copies. The court also concluded the Jesinoskis failed to generate a triable question of fact rebutting the presumption. We affirm.
You can interpret this to mean that a TILA violation is a condition precedent to TILA rescission. No violation = NO RESCISSION.