Michael and Edith Jones owned a home that went into foreclosure. During this time, they were contacted by a representative of Rees-Max, whose notice read: “There are only a few months to go in your redemption period! Your options to save the equity in your home are fading. Call me immediately for a no-bull, no-obligation assessment of your situation. Even if you have been ‘promised’ by a mortgage broker or investor that they will help, CALL ME . . . .” The Joneses contacted Rees-Max, and they entered into a sale and leaseback transaction. Rees-Max would purchase the property from the Joneses, the Joneses would lease the property for a few months, and then the Joneses would purchase the property back from Rees-Max on a contract. The property was appraised at $278,000 and purchased by Rees-Max for $214,000, with more than $30,000 in fees. The Joneses disputed these fees, and Rees-Max moved to evict them. The agreement did not use the terms debt, security, or mortgage, and the documents stated that no security interest was granted. Does this transaction constitute a mortgage that would receive protection under the Truth-in-Lending Act and the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act? Why or why not? [Jones v. Rees-Max, LLC, 514 F.Supp.2d 1139 (D.Minn. 2007)]