The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Virginia M. Kendall
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Ellie Stewart, ("Stewart") sued defendants BAC Home Loans Servicing ("BAC"), Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("Deutsche Bank") and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems ("MERS") (together, "Defendants") alleging violations of the Truth In Lending Act ("TILA"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq., and its implementing regulation, 12 C.F.R. § 226 ("Regulation Z"), and demanding rescission of the mortgage on her residence. Only Stewart's claims for rescission (against all Defendants) and failure to honor her request for rescission (against Deutsche Bank and BAC) remain. (See Doc. 32.) Stewart now moves to strike all four of Defendants' affirmative defenses as insufficient as a matter of law.
Stewart owns her residence in Chicago, Illinois. (Compl. ¶ 4.) On October 24, 2006, Stewart refinanced her mortgage on the residence through Home 123 Corporation ("Home 123"). (Compl. ¶¶ 5-8, 10.) Home 123 filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in April 2007 and Deutsche Bank is the current assignee of the loan. (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 8, 21.) BAC services the loan and MERS is the nominee. (Compl. ¶¶ 7-9; Ex. C.) This case stems from a dispute concerning the documentation provided at the closing of Stewart's refinance in 2006. Stewart alleges that Home 123 committed two TILA violations concerning those documents. First, she claims that Home 123 did not provide her with two copies of the Notice of Right to Cancel ("NORTC") as required by TILA. (Compl. ¶¶ 19-20.) Second, she claims that Home 123 provided a Truth in Lending Disclosure Statement ("TILDS") that was incomplete because it did not include the timing of the required loan payments as required by the TILA. (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18.)
On October 14, 2009, Stewart's attorneys sent a letter entitled "Notice of Rescission and Lien" to Home 123 and BAC, informing them that Stewart wanted to cancel the loan for failure to provide the NORTC and a complete TILDS. (Compl. ¶ 23; Doc. 23-1.) A few months later, BAC sent a letter to Stewart denying her claim for rescission. (See Doc. 23-2.) BAC asserted that Stewart's right to rescind had expired and attached copies of the NORTC and TILDS purportedly signed by Stewart and dated October 24, 2006. (Id.)
On March 10, 2011, the Court dismissed Stewart's claims for damages for failing to give her two copies of the NORTC and a proper TILDS as untimely. (See Doc. 32.) The Court found that Stewart's claim for rescission based on those documentation failures, on the other hand, was timely. The Court also allowed Stewart to proceed on her failure to honor rescission claim.
B. Defendants' Affirmative Defenses
Defendants responded to Stewart's Complaint with four affirmative defenses. (See Doc. 38.) The first asserts that Stewart's claims are untimely and barred by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel or laches. The second claims Stewart is not entitled to rescission because she acknowledged in writing that she received two copies of the NORTC. Third, according to Defendants, Stewart is not entitled to rescission because, from the face of the complaint, she is unwilling to give up her house or tender the amount remaining on the loan if rescission is granted. Finally, Defendants claim that they are not liable for Stewart's damages because Home 123 made the disclosures, not Defendants, and accordingly Defendants did not proximately cause Stewart's damages.
A court may strike "from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). A Rule 12(f) motion to strike "is the appropriate remedy for the elimination of impertinent or redundant matter in any pleading and is the primary procedure for objecting to an insufficient defense." Van Schouwen v. Connaught Corp., 782 F. Supp. 1240, 1245 (N.D. Ill. 1991).
Motions to strike are generally disfavored because they are often intended to cause delay.
See Heller Fin., Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co., 883 F.2d 1286, 1294 (7th Cir. 1989) (citing U.S. v. 416 Acres of Land, 514 F.2d 627, 631 (7th Cir. 1975)). Accordingly, courts are typically reluctant to decide disputed or substantial issues of law on a motion to strike. Van Schouwen, 782 F. Supp. at 1245. A motion to strike will be granted "if the affirmative defenses are insufficient as a matter of law or present no questions of law or fact," Heller, 883 F.2d at 1294, but denied "if the insufficiency of the defense is not clearly ...