Case: 12-15859 Date Filed: 05/01/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
___________________________
No. 12-15859
Non-Argument Calendar
__________________________
D. C. Docket No. 7:09-cv-00147-CLS
GARY GOFF,
On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LASALLE BANK, N.A.,
as Trustee for the MLMI Trust Series 2006-RM4,
Defendant-Appellee.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Northern District of Alabama
__________________________
(May 1, 2013)
Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-15859 Date Filed: 05/01/2013 Page: 2 of 3
This case arises out of a real estate mortgage transaction entered into by Gary
Goff and LaSalle Bank’s assignor on June 20, 2006. On January 23, 2009, Gary
Goff sued LaSalle under the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § §
1601-67(e) for statutory damages and rescission. He claimed entitlement to such
relief (1) because the closing statement did not disclose that he was required to make
monthly payments to repay the loan, and (2) the right-to-rescind form was defective
because the form did not state the date of the closing or the date of the expiration of
his right to rescind the loan.
LaSalle moved the District Court for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that
Goff’s claims for damages were time-barred by TILA’s one-year statute of
limitations for damages, and that Goff’s right to rescind expired after midnight of the
third business day following the closing. The Magistrate Judge to whom the case
was referred agreed that the claim for damages was time barred. The rescission
issue, he said, turned on the question of whether the form failed to “clearly and
conspicuously disclose” that Goff had the right to cancel the mortgage transaction
within three business days after it occurred. The judge found that although the form
was undated and the time in which he had the right to cancel was not clearly and
conspicuously explained, the form clearly and conspicuously explained that the
period in which he could exercise the right to rescind was three business days. The
2
Case: 12-15859 Date Filed: 05/01/2013 Page: 3 of 3
Magistrate Judge therefore issued a Report and Recommendation recommending
that the District Court grant LaSalle’s motion. The court followed the
recommendation, dismissed Goff’s complaint, and gave LaSalle judgment. Goff
now appeals. We affirm.
The documents provided Goff at closing were plainly sufficient to inform him
of his rights and obligations. The disclosure statement provided the number and
amounts of all loan payments; hence, a reasonable consumer could determine the
payment dates. And the Notice of Right to Cancel informed Goff that his right to
cancel would expire “three business days from . . . the date you received this notice
of right to cancel.” He received the Notice on the date of the closing.
AFFIRMED.
3