One of American victims of mortgage fraud abuse biggest weapons to fight back against predatory lending is the consumers’ right to cancel the mortgage contract if the lender didn’t follow the rules. The borrowers right to cancel (rescind) The purpose of the Truth in Lending Act as enacted by the House Of Congress was to create specific non-judicial remedies for consumers to ensure meaningful disclosure of credit terms to protect the consumer against unfair lending practices. The Federal Reserve Board’s Official Staff Commentary on Regulation Z (12 C.F.R. 226.36, Supplement I).(see Ford Motor Credit v. Milhollin, 444 U.S. 555, 565 (1980) (“Unless demonstrably irrational, Federal Reserve Board staff opinions construing the Act or Regulation should be dispositive”).The Federal Truth In Lending Act’s pertaining Regulation Z and is interpreted by official staff commentaries, was issued by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to implement the federal Truth in Lending Act. In 1968, Congress enacted TILA (15 USC §§1601-1693r). Section 105 of TILA requires the Federal Reserve Board to promulgate implementing regulations, which are collectively known as Regulation Z (12 CFR pt 226). The normal statute of limitations on the consumers’ extended right is three years but is unlimited as a defense to foreclosure. (see Beach v. Ocwen, 523 U.S. 410 (1998); (also see 15 USC §1635(f); Reg Z §§226.15(a)(3), 226.23(a)(3).) and Regulation Z §226.2(a)(11)) Unfortunately since the 2008 housing crises a massive majority of our Federal District Courts have set unfavorable precedents (final decisions) that cripple the borrowers ability enforce their rights under this powerful federal law. This picture is rapidly changing, largely due to reformation and increase in power of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau who now files amicus, or friend-of-the-court, briefs in court cases concerning the federal consumer protection laws ( like the Federal Truth in Lending Act that uphold the borrowers’ rights to legal and ethical treatment by banks. These amicus briefs provide victims of mortgage lending fraud with powerful pro-borrower opinions to influence the court on significant mortgage fraud abuse issues for the purpose of ensuring that consumer protection statutes and regulations are correctly and correctly interpreted and enforced by our federal courts. Largely thanks to a supporting amicus brief filed by the consumer financial protection bureau a powerful new precedent upholding the borrowers right to cancel a violating mortgage by notifying the lender in writing was upheld on February 5, 2013 when the Third Circuit Court of Appeals joined the Fourth Circuit in ruling that a lawsuit seeking rescission of a violating mortgage loan filed more than there years after loan consummation is timely as long as the borrower sent a written notice of rescission within the three-year period. In its decision issued on February 5, 2013 in Sherzer v. Homestar Mortgage Services, the Third Circuit rejected the banks’ argument that the borrowers’ lawsuit was untimely because it was not filed within three years of the loan closing date. Reversing the district trial court’s dismissal of the

lawsuit, the Third Circuit held that the borrowers had validly rescinded their mortgage loan by sending a notice of rescission to the lender within the three-year period. If you are in mortgage dispute litigation and you are forced to Appeal an unfavorable ruling you can apply for an amicus brief from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; Amicus Program, at the following link: