## Facts

- Richard G. Marr refinanced his home mortgage in 2007 with Countrywide Bank (later succeeded by Bank of America, N.A.).
- At closing, Marr signed a “Notice of Right to Cancel” form containing a printed acknowledgment that he received two copies of the notice.
- The closing agent placed Marr’s documents in a folder he took home.
- Marr testified he lived alone, kept the folder in a filing cabinet, and did not remove documents from it.
- About two years later, Marr brought the folder to his attorneys; they found only one copy of the rescission notice.
- Marr claimed he received only one copy at closing; under Regulation Z, failure to provide two copies extends the rescission period to three years.
- The bank relied on (i) Marr’s signed acknowledgment and (ii) the closing agent’s affidavit describing her routine practice of providing two copies, though she did not recall Marr’s closing.

## Issues

1. Whether a borrower’s sworn testimony and related circumstantial evidence can rebut the rebuttable presumption of delivery created by a signed acknowledgment of receipt of two TILA rescission notices.
2. Whether the evidence created a genuine dispute of material fact precluding summary judgment for the lender on the borrower’s rescission claim.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Bank of America and remanded.
- The court held Marr’s testimony and affidavit, together with evidence that only one notice was found in his closing folder, could allow a reasonable jury to find he received only one copy.
- The conflict between Marr’s account and the closing agent’s routine-practice affidavit presented a credibility question for the factfinder, not a matter resolvable on summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Under TILA and Regulation Z, a creditor must deliver a notice of the right to rescind and two copies of that notice to each consumer entitled to rescind in covered transactions.
- If required rescission notices are not delivered, the right to rescind extends up to three years after consummation.
- A borrower’s signed acknowledgment of receipt creates a rebuttable presumption of delivery, not conclusive proof.
- A nonmovant may defeat summary judgment with sworn testimony and circumstantial evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find in the nonmovant’s favor.
- Evidence of routine practice may support delivery but does not eliminate jury resolution where specific contrary evidence creates a material factual dispute.

## Conclusion

The court held that a signed TILA receipt acknowledgment does not foreclose a borrower from proving non-delivery; when the borrower offers sworn, case-specific evidence supporting non-receipt, the resulting factual dispute must be resolved by a jury rather than on summary judgment.


Marr v. Bank of Am., N.A., 662 F.3d 963 (7th Cir. 2011)