Bruce Hadley v. Bnc Mortgage, Inc.

MEMORANDUM

Bruce and Stephanie Y. Hadley appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. King v. California, 784 F.2d 910, 912 (9th Cir.1986). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Charley’s Taxi Radio Dispatch Corp. v. SIDA of Haw., Inc., 810 F.2d 869 , 874 (9th Cir.1987). We affirm.

The Hadleys’ claim for rescission under the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) was properly dismissed because the loan at issue was a “residential mortgage transaction” and therefore could not be rescinded under TILA. 15 U.S.C. § 1635 (e)(1) (the right of rescission does not apply to a “residential mortgage transaction”); see also id. § 1602(w) (defining a “residential mortgage transaction”).

The district court properly dismissed the Hadleys’ claim to set aside the trustee’s sale because the Hadleys failed to allege tender or facts showing that they were prejudiced by the alleged procedural defects. See Arnolds Mgmt. Corp. v. Eischen, 158 Cal.App.3d 575 , 205 Cal.Rptr. 15, 17 (1984) (“[A]n action to set aside a trustee’s sale for irregularities in sale notice…