the next paragraph that Lehman Bros, "currently owns both of [her] loans.” (Id. V 26.) Thus, the Court interprets Miranda’s statement in Paragraph 25 as a typographical error and finds that Miranda meant to allege that Wells Fargo “owned” her loans. 3 . Unlike a statutory damages claim against an assignee under § 1641(a), a rescission claim against an assignee under § 1641(c) may be brought even if there is no TILA violation apparent on the face of the loan documents. See Briggs, 349 F.Supp.2d at 1129, 1133 (denying assignees' motion for summary judgment on the issue of rescission, but granting the motion on the issue of statutory damages because there was no violation apparent on the face of the loan documents); Fairbanks Capital Corp. v. Jenkins, 225 F.Supp.2d 910, 917 (N.D.Ill.2002) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis in original). Thus, the dismissal of
recognizing an insurers right to rescind an insurance contract where the insured has made fraudulent or material misrepresentation in insurance application holding that if a direct supervisor who had the responsibility to stop harassment knew of and failed to act against it the plaintiff has no further obligation to bring it to the employers attention holding that a debtors obligation to repay a pension plan loan is a debt because the plans right to offset the obligation against future benefits constitutes a method of enforcement sufficient to create a right to payment holding that  1641c provides an exception to  1641a because a customer has the right to rescind against any assignee of the obligation  and not just against the more limited set of assignees described in  1641a  recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception