Eddison Walters v. Lime Financial Services, LTD.,

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MARCH 19, 2012
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-11973
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 7:10-cv-01148-SLB
EDDISON WALTERS,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
LIME FINANCIAL SERVICES, LTD.,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(March 19, 2012)
Before BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges, and HUNT, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM:
Eddison Walters appeals the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) of his claim that Lime Financial Services, Ltd. (“Lime”)
Honorable Willis B. Hunt, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern District of*
Georgia, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

violated the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), by failing to complete two dates on
Lime’s form disclosing Walters’ right to rescind the mortgage immediately after
the transaction. Walters argues that these omissions violated TILA by failing to
provide “clear and conspicuous notice” of “[t]he date the rescission period
expires” and therefore Walter could rescind his mortgage with Lime, nearly three
years after the initial transaction. 12 C.F.R. § 226.23(b)(1)(v).
We have held that “TILA does not require perfect notice; rather it requires a
clear and conspicuous notice of rescission rights.” Veale v. Citibank, F.S.B., 85
F.3d 577, 580 (11th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1198 (1997). We are
satisfied that the district court did not err in concluding that the form at issue in its
totality provided reasonable notice of the date the rescission period expired.
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --