Thus, implying a recording requirement would nullify the requirement of disclosing any mechanic's lien or other lien which would arise by operation of law after the performance began. § 226.9(c)(2), could not begin until the three day rescission period had passed that is, not until three days after all disclosures were required to have been made. Even if the liens did have to be recorded to be effective, the regulation cannot have contemplated a recording requirement: a lien like a mechanic's lien would not arise until the work was begun, but the work, by virtue of 12 C.F.R. The clause "whether or not recorded" is intended to modify "consensual or confessed liens", as the District Court noted, but the absence of such a modifying phrase does not necessarily imply that liens which arise by operation of law must be recorded. Neither the language of the statute nor the regulation requires that liens which arise by operation of law be recorded. Nor should the mechanic's lien be outside the definition of a security interest solely because it was not recorded. Since the "purpose of disclosure is clearly to give the borrower an opportunity to do some comparative shopping for credit terms", 476 F.2d at 1064, this Court held: Section 226.8(a) provides that the disclosures "shall be made before the transaction is consummated," which occurs "at the time a contractual relationship is created between a creditor and a customer or a lessor and lessee irrespective of the time of performance of either party," 12 C.F.R. § 226.1, et seq., promulgated by the Federal Reserve Board under the authority granted in 15 U.S.C. The Act does not define "occurrence" of the violation, but TILA requires that disclosures be made "before the credit is extended". The District Court granted the motion and this Court affirmed. Defendants moved for dismissal, asserting the one year limitations as a bar to plaintiffs' claim. Plaintiffs later sued for damages and rescission, claiming TILA violations. There, plaintiffs borrowed money from the defendants, giving a second mortgage on their home as security. 2d 114(1973), this Court was presented with a similar problem.
0 kommentar(er)
