I found previous threads where the consensus answer was that TILA does not apply to loans secured real estate held by a living trust, even if it is the primary residence of the grantor.
I'm curious - how do those of you who advocate that TILA does not apply to living trusts reconcile your position with the decision in Amonette v Indymac Bank (515 F.Supp.2d 1176)from September 2007?
In this case, the trustee (who was also previous owner of the real estate and settlor, and the property in question was her primary residence)of a revocable living trust sued a bank and its alleged agent, claiming violations of the TILA. The bank moved to dismiss. The U.S. District Court, Samuel P. King, Senior District Judge, resolving an issue of apparent first impression, held that the trustee had standing to sue for TILA violations. The judge reached this conclusion based upon statutory construction, the obvious intent of Congress and deference to FRB guidance and definitions.
In performing a Google search of Revocable Trust TILA, there were also several legal newsletters from various firms citing the case and recommending that TIL disclosures and Rights of Recission be given to all loans secured by living trusts.
Are people ignoring this case? I can find no evidence that it has been overturned, am I correct? I previously tried to resurrect an old post - but no one answered.
Edited by JLPope (05/19/10 06:39 PM)