Okay so by my count there's over 40 OPCA mortgage cases citing Jesinoski to argue that you can rescind a mortgage at anytime and not have to repay it. What's interesting is how uniform the cases are, many of the are pro se, they use the same verbiage, there is the usual OPCA arguments. And bizarrely, a moorish couple actually tried it, namely LEATRICE JOHNSON EL. AND KING MORPHEUS EL:
https://casetext.com/case/el-v-jpmorgan ... k-natlassn
As an initial matter, Plaintiffs submit as grounds for objection that in 2008 they rescinded their mortgage loan. The thrust of this argument is that, if Plaintiffs had legally rescinded the loan, then the subsequent foreclosure procedure would have been invalid. For reasons that will be discussed in detail below, this argument ultimately fails because, after attempting to rescind their original loan, Plaintiffs entered into a loan modification which superseded the original, purportedly rescinded loan, and it was the new loan which included the mortgage that was ultimately foreclosed upon. Nevertheless, because Plaintiffs emphasize the rescission argument, and it was not discussed in detail in the Report and Recommendation, the Court will explain its reasoning here as to why the rescission argument does not succeed.
Plaintiffs cite two cases for support: Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 790 (2015) and Paatalo v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 146 F. Supp. 3d 1239 (D. Or. 2015).
Plaintiffs argue that they rescinded the loan in 2008 by sending a letter notifying Defendants that Plaintiffs were rescinding, that upon sending the rescission letter the burden then shifted to Defendants to provide the appropriate paperwork and to begin the winding-up process, that Defendants did not comply with their responsibilities, and that therefore under Jesinoski and Paatalo "the rescission was effective on the date of the notice."
So there's clearly a cluster of cases which indicates there must be some central figure or group that spread this Jesinoski argument.
Compare to this one:
On August 7, 2015, Brown served a "notice to rescind" on US Bank, and she attached a copy of that notice to her amended complaint. In that notice, Brown states, in pertinent part:
Please be advised that I intend to rescind the purported obligation under the trust deed and note, a partial copy of which is attached for your reference.
Please be advised that if you fail to sue me and re-establish the debt within twenty (20) days from the date of this notice, you will lose any security interests you might claim to have in my property, by this instrument.
Furthermore, if you fail to return the property or money deposited by the promissory note and related costs, you may be subject to damages.
Please also be advised that the three-day and three-year limitations do not apply as these time periods have been extended because the presumption of "equitable tolling" applies under the circumstances. Please review the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court, Jesinoski v. Countrywide, 135 S.Ct. 790 (2015).
I intend to sue you for the damages.