case here, even if the action were not barred by the limitations period. Moreover, § 1635 “does not apply to ... a residential mortgage transaction as defined in section 1602(w) of this title.” § 1635(e) and (e)(1). “The term ‘residential mortgage transaction’ means a transaction in which a mortgage, deed of trust, purchase money security interest arising under an installment sales contract or equivalent consensual security interest is created or retained against the consumer’s dwelling to finance the acquisition or initial construction of such dwelling.” § 1602(w). In other words, the right to rescind under TILA would exist only if the Property had not itself been the security for the loan obtained to purchase the Property. Compare In re Schweizer, 354 B.R. 272 (Bankr.D.Idaho 2006) (<HOLDING>), with De Jesus-Serrano v. Sana Inv. Mortgage
holding that an order to disgorge funds was final even though the order did not distribute the funds holding proper remedy when a christian student newspaper was denied student activities funds was to make funds available to the religious paper not to deny funds to nonreligious student groups holding that the tila rescission remedy did not apply where borrowers used funds to acquire a primary residence holding residence means legal residence for will probate holding office exempt where the rest of the residence was not