UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM H. ARNOLD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

MICHAEL REDDING,
Plaintiff,

v.

WATERFIELD MORTGAGE COMPANY,
INCORPORATED,
                                                               No. 96-1701
Defendant-Appellee,

and

UNION FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK;
ALVIN E. FRIEDMAN; KENNETH J.
MACFADYEN; JAMES J. LOFTUS;
DANIEL MENCHEL, Substitute
Trustees,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge.
(CA-95-2626-S)

Argued: May 6, 1997

Decided: June 17, 1997

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

ARGUED: Herbert Arthur Terrell, Bel Air, Maryland, for Appellant.
Michael Thomas Cantrell, FRIEDMAN & MACFADYEN, P.A., Bal-
timore, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Allan J. Culver, Jr., Bel
Air, Maryland, for Appellant. Kenneth J. MacFadyen, FRIEDMAN &
MACFADYEN, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

William H. Arnold appeals an order of the district court granting
summary judgment against him on his action to rescind a loan under
the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. (TILA). We
affirm.

In 1989 Arnold obtained a loan from Defendant Union Federal
Savings Bank. The loan was evidenced by an adjustable rate note and
secured by a mortgage against Arnold's home. In 1995, six years after
signing the loan documents, Arnold brought this action in district
court to rescind the loan. The TILA imposes a three-year statute of
limitations on actions to rescind. See 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f) ("An obli-
gor's right of rescission shall expire three years after the date of con-
summation of the transaction or upon the sale of the property,
whichever occurs first . . ."). Arnold admits that more than three years
have elapsed since the loan transaction closed.

Arnold's principal contention on appeal is that the three-year limi-
tations period starts anew each time a rate adjustment is made to a
variable rate mortgage. We disagree. A rate adjustment is not a "trans-
action" within the meaning of § 1635(f). Cf. 12 C.F.R. § 226.20(c)
(explaining that a variable rate adjustment is an event requiring new

                     2
disclosures, but not indicating that adjustment triggers a new opportu-
nity to rescind). Therefore, we agree with the district court that the
three-year limitations period bars Arnold's action to rescind.

After consideration of the parties' briefs, the record, and the oral
arguments of counsel, we conclude that the district court correctly
granted summary judgment against Arnold on all of his claims.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See
Arnold v. Waterfield Mortgage Co., No. S 95-2626 (D. Md. 1996).

AFFIRMED

                    3
