George and Mona Antanuos obtained a mortgage loan secured with rental property from the First National Bank of Arizona. At the closing, they received from the bank a “Notice of Right to Cancel,” informing them of their three-day rescission period under the Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA). The following day, according to the Antanuoses, they informed the lender via fax that they wished to exercise their right to rescind. The lender refused to rescind the agreement. George and Mona sued the bank. In federal court, the Antanuoses did not dispute that a consumer’s right to rescind under the TILA applies only to the consumer’s original dwelling and that they had used their commercial property as a security interest. Instead, the Antanuoses argued that the bank was prohibited from denying them the rescission right because they relied to their detriment on the bank’s disclosure, which would have been required under the TILA. Would the court be convinced? Explain. [Antanuos v. First National Bank of Arizona, 508 F.Supp.2d 466 (E.D.Va. 2007)]