FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 22 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIE T. PEYTON, No. 11-17775
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
1:10-cv-00186-SOM-KSC
v.
OPTION ONE MORTGAGE MEMORANDUM*
CORPORATION, a California
corporation, its successors and assigns,
now known as Sand Canyon
Corporation; DEUTSCHE BANK
NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,
asTrustee for HSI Asset Securitization
Corporation trust 2006-OPT3,
Mortgage Pass-Though Certificates,
Series 2006-OPT3; DOES, 1-30,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Susan Oki Mollway, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 24, 2017**
Honolulu, Hawaii
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
page 2
Before: KOZINSKI, HAWKINS and BEA, Circuit Judges.
1. A borrower has a right to rescind a home mortgage transaction “until
midnight of the third business day following the consummation of the transaction.”
15 U.S.C. § 1635(a). But, if the lender fails to disclose this rescission right, the
right can instead be exercised for three years. See 12 C.F.R. § 226.23(a)(3). The
Peytons signed a document stating that they “RECEIVED TWO (2) COMPLETED
COPIES OF THE NOTICE OF RIGHT TO CANCEL IN THE FORM
PRESCRIBED BY LAW.” This evidence creates a presumption that the Peytons
received the appropriate disclosures and are not entitled to the three-year extension.
See 15 U.S.C. § 1635(c). The Peytons presented no admissible evidence to rebut
the presumption and extend the rescission period. Their rescission claims were
thus time-barred, and the district court properly granted summary judgment to the
defendants.
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Peytons’
motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b). See McDowell v.
Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999); Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino,
116 F.3d 379, 380–82 (9th Cir. 1997).
AFFIRMED.