## Facts

- Dorothy B. Jenkins entered a home-secured consumer credit transaction on August 25, 1987, closed through an attorney acting for the original lender, First American Mortgage and Loan Association of Virginia.
- At closing, Jenkins signed an acknowledgment of receipt on the TILA disclosure statement, but she and her son left the closing without a copy of the TILA disclosure form in their possession.
- Jenkins did take the creditor’s copy of a “Notice of Right to Cancel,” but she was told orally and in writing that her rescission right would expire at midnight on August 28, 1987.
- The next day, the closing attorney mailed Jenkins a complete set of loan documents, including the TILA disclosures, with a cover letter stating she would remain liable for certain fees even if she rescinded.
- On September 4, 1987, Jenkins was notified that Landmark Mortgage Corporation of Virginia purchased and held her note and deed of trust as assignee.
- After Jenkins defaulted and received a foreclosure notice dated May 19, 1988, she sent notice of rescission on June 21–22, 1988, asserting the rescission period had not expired due to defective disclosures.

## Issues

1. Whether Jenkins’s June 1988 rescission was timely and effective under TILA where the required disclosures were not delivered in a form she could keep at consummation and she received misleading statements about rescission timing and consequences.
2. Whether Jenkins’s signed acknowledgment of receipt of disclosures conclusively established delivery, or instead created only a rebuttable presumption that could be overcome by contrary evidence.

## Decision

- The court granted declaratory relief for Jenkins, holding her June 1988 rescission was valid and timely under TILA.
- The court held the signed acknowledgment created only a rebuttable presumption of delivery, which Jenkins overcame with evidence that she left the closing without the disclosures required to be “given” to her.
- The court found the oral and written communications about the rescission deadline and liability for fees were not clear and conspicuous and were misleading as to the effects of rescission.
- Because material disclosures and proper notice were not provided as required, the ordinary three-day rescission period did not begin to run; the rescission right remained available when Jenkins sent her notice.

## Legal Principles

- TILA and Regulation Z impose a strict, objective requirement that rescission-related disclosures be clear and conspicuous.
- A consumer’s signed acknowledgment of receipt of TILA disclosures establishes a rebuttable presumption of delivery, not a conclusive bar to a non-delivery claim.
- To trigger the three-day rescission period, the creditor must actually provide required disclosures and rescission notices in a form the consumer can keep at or near consummation; later mailing may be insufficient.
- Misstatements about the time to rescind or the effects of rescission can prevent proper notice and extend the consumer’s rescission right (potentially up to the statutory maximum period).

## Conclusion

The court ruled that deficient delivery of TILA disclosures and misleading explanations about rescission prevented the three-day rescission period from running, and that Jenkins rebutted any presumption created by her signed receipt; her June 1988 notice therefore effectively rescinded the home-secured transaction.


Jenkins v. Landmark Mortg. Corp. of Va., 696 F. Supp. 1089 (W.D. Va. 1988)