[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-279456-105":53,"doc-detail-279456-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":119,"head_meta":121,"extra_data":123,"updated_unix":125},105,"en","beneficial-illinois-inc-v-parker-appellate-court-opinion-december-12-2016","Beneficial Illinois Inc. v. Parker - Appellate Court Opinion - December 12, 2016","","Appellate review addresses a home-loan mortgage foreclosure and the effect of a borrower’s mailed rescission notice under the Truth in Lending Act. The borrower refinanced in 2007, stopped payments, and the lender initiated foreclosure. After the borrower sent a rescission letter in 2010 and the lender continued, the borrower asserted affirmative defenses and counterclaims. The court holds that rescission was properly invoked and reverses dismissal of related counterclaims, while finding disclosure-related claims time-barred.",{"@graph":63,"@context":118},[64,80,101],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/beneficial-illinois-inc-v-parker-appellate-court-opinion-december-12-2016/279456/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/beneficial-illinois-inc-v-parker-appellate-court-opinion-december-12-2016/279456.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Levi","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-09-16",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":30},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",{"@type":102,"mainEntity":103},"FAQPage",[104,110,114],{"name":105,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":107},"What triggered the foreclosure action in this case?","Question",{"text":108,"@type":109},"The borrower stopped making required payments, leading the lender to file a foreclosure action.","Answer",{"name":111,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":112},"How did the court treat the borrower’s rescission letter?",{"text":113,"@type":109},"The court agreed the borrower properly invoked the rescission mechanism by sending the rescission letter, and it reversed dismissal of counterclaims tied to the lender’s failure to honor it.",{"name":115,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":116},"Why were some counterclaims dismissed?",{"text":117,"@type":109},"Counterclaims related to disclosure failures were held time barred under the applicable TILA limitations.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":120,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":122,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":124,"site_id":56},279456,1790039359,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":127},{"doc_id":124,"user_id":128,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":30,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":135,"language":136,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":140,"read_time":73},7971461740909,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","Illinois Official Reports  \nAppellate Court  \nDigitally signed by Reporter of Decisions Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document  \nDate: 2017.02.09  \n11:08:29-06'00'  \nBeneficial Illinois Inc. v. Parker, 2016 IL App (1st) 160186  \nAppellate Court Caption  \nDistrict & No.  \nFiled  \nDecision Under  \nReview  \nJudgment  \nCounsel on Appeal  \nPanel  \nBENEFICIAL ILLINOIS INC., d/b/a BENEFICIAL MORTGAGE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RANDALL PARKER a/k/a RANDALL W. PARKER; MARVELENE PARKER; UNKNOWN OWNERS and NON-RECORD CLAIMANTS, Defendants (Randall Parker a/k/a Randall W. Parker, DefendantAppellant) .  \nFirst District, First Division Docket No. 1-16-0186  \nDecember 12, 2016  \nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 09-CH-39557; the Hon. Anthony Kyriakopoulos, Judge, presiding.  \nAffirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part.  \nConsumer Legal Group, P.C., of Matteson (Lloyd Brooks, of counsel), for appellant.  \nAnselmo Lindberg Oliver, LLC, of Naperville (Robert J. Deisinger, of counsel), for appellee.  \nJUSTICE HARRIS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Simon and Mikva concurred in judgment and opinion.  \nOPINION  \n¶ 1 Defendant-appellant, Randall Parker (Randall), refinanced his home loan mortgage with  \nplaintiff-appellee, Beneficial Illinois Inc., d/b/a Beneficial Mortgage Company of Illinois (Beneficial), in July 2007. In October 2008, he stopped making the required payments and Beneficial instituted a foreclosure proceeding in October 2009. In June 2010, Randall attempted to rescind the mortgage by mailing a letter to Beneficial. Beneficial never responded and proceeded with the foreclosure litigation. In September 2010, Randall filed a counterclaim and affirmative defenses. After briefing, the circuit court dismissed the counterclaims and affirmative defenses as untimely. Eventually, Beneficial voluntarily dismissed its foreclosure proceeding and Randall now appeals the dismissal of his affirmative defense and counterclaims.  \n¶ 2 For the following reasons, we agree that Randall properly invoked the rescission  \nmechanism when he sent Beneficial the rescission letter. We also reverse the dismissal of Randall’s counterclaim related to Beneficial’s failure to honor the rescission letter. However, his counterclaim related to Beneficial’s failure to disclose certain information when the loan closed is time barred.  \n¶ 3 JURISDICTION  \n¶ 4 Beneficial filed this foreclosure action on October 15, 2009. On September 1, 2010,  \nRandall filed an answer, affirmative defense, and counterclaims. On September 5, 2014, the circuit court granted Beneficial’s motion to dismiss Randall’s affirmative defense and counterclaims. On December 15, 2015, the circuit court granted Beneficial’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the foreclosure action. Thereafter, on January 14, 2016, Randall filed his notice of appeal. Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to article VI, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution, and Illinois Supreme Court Rules 301 and 303. Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 6; Ill. S. Ct. R. 301 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994); R. 303 (eff. May 30, 2008) .  \n¶ 5 BACKGROUND  \n¶ 6 On July 9, 2007, Beneficial made a loan to Randall and his wife.1 The loan was secured  \nwith a mortgage against Randall’s home. In connection with the loan, Beneficial tendered to Randall a loan agreement (Loan Agreement) outlining the terms of the loan. Based on the terms of the loan, Randall was required to start making payments on August 9, 2007.  \n¶ 7 The Loan Agreement contained a Truth in Lending Disclosure (TILD) . The TILD  \ndisclosed estimated terms of the loan, including the finance charges, total number of payments, and when payments are due. In October 2008, Randall and his wife failed to make the required loan payment as set forth in the Loan Agreement. Thereafter, on October 15, 2009, Beneficial filed a foreclosure action seeking to foreclose on Randall’s mortgage.  \n¶ ","cbCaiqRXxSnNUWY5","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiqRXxSnNUWY5","pdf",347594,6,"English","# Opinion\n## Jurisdiction\n## Background\n## Discussion and Holding","[{\"question\":\"What triggered the foreclosure action in this case?\",\"answer\":\"The borrower stopped making required payments, leading the lender to file a foreclosure action.\"},{\"question\":\"How did the court treat the borrower’s rescission letter?\",\"answer\":\"The court agreed the borrower properly invoked the rescission mechanism by sending the rescission letter, and it reversed dismissal of counterclaims tied to the lender’s failure to honor it.\"},{\"question\":\"Why were some counterclaims dismissed?\",\"answer\":\"Counterclaims related to disclosure failures were held time barred under the applicable TILA limitations.\"}]","Beneficial Illinois Inc. v. Parker - Appellate Court Opinion - December 12, 2016 | PDF",1789520996]