Richard D. Bennett United States District Judge
The Plaintiff Carter Puryear asserts claims of violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1601, et seq., the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”), Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301, et seq. via the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (“MCDCA”), Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 14-201, et seq.; and for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the Defendant Capital One Bank, N.A. Specifically, the Plaintiff contends that, in connection with a loan transaction, the Defendant failed to give him proper notice of his right to rescind, failed to honor his rescission, engaged in unfair debt collection practices, and failed to release a lien on his property. Pending before this Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18) and Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 29). A hearing was held on January 6, 2014. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2011). For the reasons indicated on the hearing record and those that follow, Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 29) is DENIED.
At the hearing, the parties agreed as to the following recitation of the facts. The Plaintiff, Carter Puryear, entered into a home equity line of credit loan with Capital One on April 19, 2011 (the “Loan”). The line of credit, for an amount up to $75, 000, was secured by a deed of trust to Puryear’s home, which he already owned and used as his principal residence. The deed of trust was recorded in the land records of Frederick County, Maryland on May 12, 2011.
The transaction was an open-end credit agreement as defined by the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1637, and its implementing regulations. Because the Loan involved a security interest in the home, the TILA gave Puryear the right to rescind the transaction within three days. Pursuant to the TILA, Capital One was required to provide him notice of this right and of the date on which the rescission period expired. Capital One provided a form to Puryear containing standard language which indicated:
You have a legal right under federal law to cancel the account without cost, within three (3) business days from whichever of the following events occurs last:
(A) the date of the opening of your account which is April 14, 2011, or
(B) the date you received your Truth in Lending disclosures, or
(C) the date you received this notice of your right to cancel the account.
Notice of Right to Cancel, ECF No. 25-4 (“April 2011 Notice”). The April 2011 Notice also stated:
If you cancel by mail or telegram, you must send the notice no later than midnight of April 18, 2011 or midnight of the third (3rd) business day following the latest of the three events listed above. Id. (emphasis in original). Pursuant to the terms of the Loan, the Plaintiff drew funds on the home equity line of credit and payments on the Loan were automatically deducted from his checking account. Puryear made no attempt to rescind the Loan during this time period.
On October 26, 2011, after an internal review, Capital One sent the Plaintiff a new notice (“October 2011 Notice”) informing him that he had an additional opportunity to rescind the Loan within three days. On October 29, 2011, the Plaintiff timely exercised his right to rescission, and on or about November 3, 2011, he tendered $27, 104.35 that had been advanced to him back to the Defendant.
On four occasions in June and July of 2012, Capital One demanded payment of a $50.00 annual fee on the now-rescinded Loan. Capital One also did not refund finance charges, settlement costs, and interest he paid on the Loan. In addition, the deed of trust had not been released and therefore a lien on Puryear’s home remained recorded in the land records for Frederick County, Maryland. On August 9, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Frederick County (ECF No. 2), asserting violations of the Truth in Lending Act, violations of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act and Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act, and seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. After the complaint was filed, Capital One finally recorded a Certificate of Satisfaction in the Frederick ...