On May 5, 2006, Rex Gilbert executed an adjusted rate note with First National Arizona to refinance the existing lien on his home in Ocracoke, North Carolina. Thereafter, First National Arizona transferred its interests in the Gilberts' mortgage to First National Bank of Nevada, First National Nevada transferred its interests to Residential Funding LLC (RFL), and RFL sold its interests to Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as the trustee for Residential Accredit Loans Inc. (RAL). GMAC Mortgage LLC is the subservicer. The Gilberts defaulted on their loan in 2008, and, on March 12, 2009, David Simpson, acting as the substitute trustee for Deutsche, filed a foreclosure action against the Gilberts in the Hyde County Superior Court. On April 5, 2009, the Gilberts' counsel wrote a letter to GMAC alleging violations of TILA and providing notice that the Gilberts were rescinding the mortgage transaction. GMAC replied, informing the Gilberts that they had not found any basis that would give rise to an extended right of rescission. On September 14, 2009, while their appeal was pending, the Gilberts filed suit in the Hyde County Superior Court, seeking to enjoin the mortgage foreclosure sales and to rescind their May 6, 2006 loan. The defendants removed the suit to the district court and the district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. However, in light of new evidence, the Gilberts filed a motion for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b) with the district court. On June 15, 2011, the district court filed an order stating that should the Fourth Circuit return jurisdiction to this court, the court would grant the Rule 60(b) motion, dismiss the federal claims for the reasons stated in the July 7, 2010, order (dismissing all of the Gilberts' claims), and remand all state-law claims to Hyde County Superior Court. The Gilberts subsequently filed a motion with the Fourth Circuit U.S. appeals court to reverse and remand the case to the district court. The Gilberts argued that the district court erred in dismissing their TILA claim on the basis that they had failed to exercise their extended right to rescind in a timely manner. The question at hand is if a borrower must file a lawsuit within three years of closing the loan or if the borrower must only assert his or her right to rescind through a written notice. What arguments can you make for each side? How did the Fourth Circuit court decide on this matter, and what was its reasoning? [Gilbert v. Residential Funding LLC, 678 F. 3d 271 (2012).]