Whether the lender may decline to follow the prescribed procedure under the Truth in Lending Act after receiving notice of rescission

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether, under the Truth in Lending Act and controlling case authority, the lender or creditor, after receipt of timely notice of rescission of a nonpurchase money mortgage, given by the borrower, may decline to follow the prescribed procedure under sec 15 U.S..C 1635(b) provided for challenging or effectuating the rescission, and thereafter simply proceed with foreclosure of the rescinded mortgage, without pleading or proof of any deficiency in the rescission notice, and without pleading or proof of the subject matter jurisdiction of the chosen foreclosing court. Whether, under the Truth in Lending Act and controlling case authority, the foreclosing court, upon the borrowers’ defense that said court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to foreclose the previously duly rescinded mortgage, can declare the rescission notice to be insufficient (or “patently frivolous”) for 4 ii ; the purpose without pleading or proof to that effect, first having been offered by the foreclosing creditor a) where the rescission notice was timely given to the proper party, b) where it described TILA deficiencies as its basis, c) where it requested “invalidation” of the loan, though no magic words are required, d) where the district court examined, and had opined that the borrowers rescission notice was timely, showed their intention to rescind, opined that the lender failed to disclose required TILA disclosures, and opined that Maduras had “arguably rescinded”, e) where the creditor made no response to the borrowers’ rescission notice, timely or otherwise, as required by the Act, f) where the creditor made no attempt, belated or otherwise, to secure relief from its delinquency and g) where the creditor made no pleading and offered no proof that the notice was deficient. Whether a final judgment entered foreclosing the said mortgage under circumstances described violates the borrowers right to due process under the 5th and 14ttamendments to the US Const. where the purported security no longer constituted any lien on the subject property foreclosed; Whether, following the borrowers rescission voiding the security interest of the mortgage, the borrowers’ repayment of the principal of the loan, which TILA would have obligated them to do, but done so voluntarily, as a result of the creditors failure to comply with its TILA obligations, could operate as © some waiver of rescission or ratification of the creditors inaction, so as to effectively revive the mortgage voided by the prior TILA notice, thereby permitting foreclosure of the “revived” mortgage. i] iv