United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
WENDELL J. LASETER, JR. and CASSANDRA M. LASETER, Plaintiffs,
CLIMATEGUARD DESIGN & INSTALLATION, LLC and ADMIRALS BANK, formerly known as DOMESTIC BANK, Defendants
For Wendell J. Laseter, Jr., Cassandra M. Laseter, Plaintiffs: Daniel A. Edelman, LEAD ATTORNEY, Cathleen M. Combs, James O. Latturner, Thomas Everett Soule, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, Chicago, IL.
For ClimateGuard Design & Installation, LLC, Defendant: Robert Michael Knabe, LEAD ATTORNEY, Attorney at Law, Chicago, IL; Gregory Abbott Bedell, Chicago, IL.
For Admirals Bank, formerly known as Domestic Bank, Defendant: Ian Brenson, LEAD ATTORNEY, Law Offices of Ian Brenson, La Grange, IL.
Young B. Kim, United States Magistrate Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
Wendell and Cassandra Laseter entered into a contract with ClimateGuard Design & Installation, LLC (" ClimateGuard" ) to purchase a new roof for their house, and took out a mortgage from Admirals Bank (" Admirals" ) to finance the project. Two years later the roof began to leak, requiring thousands of dollars' worth of repair. The Laseters brought this suit against Climateguard and Admirals seeking rescission of the mortgage under the Truth in Lending Act (" TILA" ), 15 U.S.C. § 1635, alleging that the defendants omitted material disclosures from the Truth In Lending Disclosure Statement they included in the financing documents. The suit includes a second count for breach of contract under state law. Currently before the court is Admirals's motion to dismiss the Laseter's TILA claim either for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), or alternatively, under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.  For the following reasons, the motion is denied:
The Laseters allege the following facts, which, for purposes of the current motion to dismiss--whether for lack of jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim--this court accepts as true. See Independent Trust Corp. v. Stewart Info. Servs. Corp., 665 F.3d 930, 934 (7th Cir. 2012); see also Lagen v. United Cont'l Holdings, Inc., F.Supp.2d, 12 CV 4056, 920 F.Supp.2d 912, 2013 WL 375213, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 31, 2013). On August 14, 2009, ClimateGuard representatives visited the Laseters' home and sold them a new roof. (R. 1, Compl. ¶ 10.) That same day, the Laseters signed a " sales/retail installment contract," which included a section labeled " Disclosures Required by Federal Law." (Id. ¶ 11 & Ex. A.) Those disclosures included only " estimates" of key terms, like the annual percentage rate, total of payments, and number of payments. (Id. ¶ 12 & Ex. A.) After the Laseters signed the sales contract, ClimateGuard--which had a prior arrangement with Admirals (then d/b/a Domestic Bank) for the referral of clients--arranged for the Laseters to take out a mortgage from Admirals to pay for the new roof. (Id. ¶ ¶ 13-14.) Two weeks after the Laseters signed the sales contract, they signed the loan documents. (Id. ¶ 15 & Exs. C-E.)
Among the documents the Laseters received or signed in connection with the mortgage, Admirals provided them with a Truth-In-Lending Disclosure Statement. (Id. ¶ 15 & Ex. C.) In the top third of that document are boxes setting forth the annual percentage rate (" APR" ), finance charge, amount financed, total of payments, and a payment schedule conveying the number and amount of payments and the date on which the first payments are
due. (Id. Ex. C.) Those boxes do not disclose the interval or schedule of the payments. (Id. ¶ 16 & Ex. C.) On a separate page, however, Admirals provided a schedule setting forth the number and amount of payments, and stating that those payments are due " monthly." (Id. Ex. C.)
Two years after ClimateGuard installed the Laseter's new roof, it began to leak. (Id. ¶ 17.) When the Laseters complained to ClimateGuard about the leaky roof, it refused to remedy the problem, saying it was no longer in the roofing business. (Id. ¶ ¶ 19-20.) The Laseters estimate that repairing the roof will cost them in the range of $6,900 to $9,950. (Id. ¶ 21.) They now invoke what they assert is their right to rescind the mortgage under TILA, alleging that the payment schedule was improperly disclosed and that the process of requiring them to sign financing documents two weeks after they signed a binding sales ...