The opinion of the court was delivered by: Juan R. Sánchez, J.
Jennifer St. Hill asks this Court to allow her to rescind her $1.3 million mortgage on grounds the lender did not provide her with the required disclosure documents. St. Hill is not entitled to rescission because she received and signed for the documents the Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., requires. St. Hill's lender, however, violated TILA when it failed to include St. Hill's mortgage broker's fees in the itemized costs of closing on the loan. St. Hill's untimely Complaint precludes statutory damages.
St. Hill needed $1.3 million in the summer of 2006 for the trustee to satisfy her business creditors during a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. A friend referred her to a real estate agent named Francis Kilson, who in turn referred her to David Diamond, a mortgage broker doing business as Financial and Consulting Strategies, Inc. (FCS).
When St. Hill engaged Diamond to find her a mortgage loan, she agreed in the Mortgage Broker's Contract to pay Diamond one percent of the loan amount. Diamond placed St. Hill's mortgage with Tribeca Lending Corporation, a company with which he did not usually do business. Adam Turkewicz at Tribeca had solicited Diamond's mortgage business in December 2005. St. Hill testified Kilson, Diamond, and Turkewicz told her she could refinance easily because her house had appreciated from $535,000.00 to $2 million. St. Hill testified she expected a six percent fixed rate mortgage even though she was in bankruptcy. St. Hill wrote to Diamond twice at the end of July claiming ownership in several businesses, a thriving law practice, and, in the Universal Residential Loan Application, claimed an income of $20,000 a month. St. Hill testified at trial she has not worked since 2004 and has lived on disability payments.
The loan offer from Tribeca included an 11.49 percent interest rate and two points, two percent of the total, as a fee to Tribeca. At St. Hill's request, Diamond negotiated a reduced interest rate of 9.99 percent and three points with Tribeca. Diamond told Turkewicz before the St. Hill settlement Diamond's fee was one percent of the loan amount.
At Turkewicz's request, Diamond met with St. Hill in July to receive her signature on four loan documents, including a Good Faith Estimate of closing costs and a Truth-in-Lending Disclosure Statement itemizing the variable mortgage payments as 24 of $12,863.87, 335 of $13,949.89, and one of $13,951.81. St. Hill wrote to Tribeca on July 27, 2006, "I realize that the payment of my proposed mortgage payment of $14,542.16 is substantially higher than the $4,656.00 that I formerly paid. However, I assure you that I am sufficiently capable of managing these payments." Tr. 1.296:8-12. St. Hill wrote a second letter to Turkewicz on July 27, 2006, stating, "In addition to my law practice, I am the owner or part owner of several other ventures, including, Philadelphia Deed Service, Convergent Enterprises and PreForeclosure4Sale." Ex. 12. Tribeca then communicated to Diamond its acceptance of the $1.3 million mortgage.
Shortly before settlement, Turkewicz told Diamond his broker's fee would not be reflected on the settlement sheet. Turkewicz told Diamond and St. Hill she would have to pay Diamond outside of the settlement documents. To allow St. Hill to settle in time to satisfy the bankruptcy trustee, Diamond agreed to be paid outside of settlement. He received a post-dated check for $6,500 after settlement, and the remainder over the next year.
As a convenience to St. Hill, settlement was scheduled at her home office on August 11, 2006. Diamond and a title clerk attended the settlement with St. Hill and her then-husband. During settlement, St. Hill and her then-husband signed 23 documents prepared by Tribeca. Diamond testified he reviewed each document with St. Hill. St. Hill signed a second Federal Truth-in-Lending Disclosure Statement which prominently listed 24 payments of $11,398.83, 335 payments of $12,953.76, and one payment of $12,962.70. She also signed an ARM Program Disclosure which stated after 24 months her interest rate could adjust every six months by as much as six percent, raising her 9.9 percent rate to 15.9 percent. Ex. 23. St. Hill also signed an Adjustable Rate Note and an Adjustable Rate Rider. Exs. 25 and 28. St. Hill signed two copies of the Notice of Right to Cancel which told her "[y]ou have a legal right under federal law to cancel this transaction, without cost, within three business days. . . ." Ex. 22. St. Hill testified she made no attempt to cancel the mortgage before filing suit in December 2007.
St. Hill was not credible when she testified the first time she knew she had accepted an adjustable rate mortgage was in October 2007.*fn1 St. Hill testified she signed an "ARM Program Disclosure" at settlement but maintained she had not received the document. St. Hill testified, "they were left on my table. I did not receive this. I don't care how many times you ask it, I don't care how many different ways you ask it, I did not receive this. These documents were left on my table after I signed them." Tr.1.238:4-7.
In December 2007, St. Hill sued Diamond, FCS, Tribeca, Litton Loan Servicing, and LaSalle Bank, the assignee of the mortgage,*fn2 alleging violations of TILA; Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. § 1691(d); violations of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. §§ 210-1 et seq., under the Door-to-Door Sales Act, 73 P.S. § 201-7; failing to respond within 20 days to a qualified written request under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605(5)(e), and fraud.*fn3
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c) provides that "[i]f during a trial without a jury a party has been fully heard on an issue and the court finds against the party on that issue, the court may enter judgment as a matter of law against that party with respect to a claim . . . that cannot under the controlling law be maintained." Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(c). In entering judgment pursuant to Rule 52(c), I must weigh the evidence, resolve any conflicts in it, and decide where the preponderance of the evidence lies. Giant Eagle, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 884 F. Supp. 979, 982 (W.D. Pa. 1995) (citing 9A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Civil 2d, § 2573.1); see also United Techs. Corp. v. Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corp., 105 F. Supp. 2d 346 (D. Del. 2000). I also assess the credibility of witnesses. Rego v. ARC Water Treatment Co. of Pa., 181 F.3d 396, 399 (3d Cir. 1999) (holding the district court can resolve disputed factual questions under Rule 52(c)). Credibility determinations alone are insufficient to satisfy the requirements of Rule 52(c). Newark Branch NAACP v. City of Bayonne, 134 F.3d 113 (3d Cir.1998)..
To prove her claim under TILA, St. Hill must overcome a rebuttable presumption of delivery of the required disclosures. 15 U.S.C. § 1635(c). TILA is intended to inform the consumer of the true cost of credit. TILA and its implementing Regulation Z require lenders to disclose clearly and conspicuously to consumers the material terms of their loans. In re Escher, 369 B.R. 862, 870 ...