non-rescission on the date of the transaction, the [lender] suggested [the borrower] had foreclosed her right of rescission.” Id. Other courts, under similar circumstances, have reached the same conclusion. In Wiggins, the borrower granted a security interest in her home in return for a home improvement loan. 62 F.Supp.2d at 92. At the loan closing, the borrower was presented a Notice of Right to Cancel form nearly identical to the form at issue here. Id. at 94-95. As with the Moaus, the borrower simultaneously signed the si .Supp.2d 829, 834 (N.D.Ill.2004) (finding a certification of election not to rescind signed at closing “was, quite simply, untrue” and the average borrower would be confused); and Pulphus v. Sullivan, No. 02 C 5794, 2003 WL 1964333, at *15 (N.D.Ill. April 28, 2003) (<HOLDING>). We find the reasoning of these cases
holding that where parties to an oral loan agreed that the loan would be repaid on demand the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the date plaintiff demanded repayment of the loan holding that a loan transaction is a business practice under the ucl holding that the surviving spouse of the borrower could not maintain a respa claim in her individual capacity because she never assumed the deceaseds loan holding that a lender violated the tila by splitting the charges surrounding one loan into two loans executed on the same day where the consumer only sought one loan holding where among other things the borrower signed confirming the transaction had not been rescinded on the date the loan closed she stated a claim for violation of tila