Regency Savings Bank v. Chavis
Appellate Court of Illinois
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Byrne
This appeal arose from an action brought by plaintiff, Regency Savings Bank, to foreclose its mortgage on the residence of defendants, Sigmund J. Chavis and Harriet Chavis. The trial court found that defendants were entitled to rescind the note and mortgage because they were not provided with proper documentation regarding their rescission rights pursuant to section 1635 of the Truth in Lending Act (Act) (15 U.S.C. § 1635 (1982)). The trial court conditioned defendants’ grant to rescind on their tender of $349,572 to plaintiff, which represented, inter alia, the principal loan amount.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Foutch v. O'BRYANTIllinois Supreme Court · 1984
- Austin C. Palmer and Helen M. Palmer, Husband and Wife v. Gladys S. WilsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1974
- In Re Marriage of MitchellIllinois Supreme Court · 1998
- Annie Mae Williams v. Homestake Mortgage Co., Ignacio Goldemberg and Adriana GoldembergCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1992
- Department of Public Aid Ex Rel. Davis v. BrewerIllinois Supreme Court · 1998
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Quenzer v. Advanta Mortgage Corp. USADistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2003
- Kambylis v. Ford Motor Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 2003
- Nevada Commission on Ethics v. BallardNevada Supreme Court · 2004
- Kambylis v. Ford Motor Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 2003