PER CURIAM.
Dennis and Eileen Kucera appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their complaint for failure to state a claim. For reversal, the Kuceras allege that their complaint stated violations of the Truth in Lending Act (Act), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. (1982), by the Citizens Bank & Trust Company (Bank), and Dan B. McNair, an employee of the Bank.
After carefully reviewing the record, we agree that the district court properly dismissed the complaint. The Kuceras’ argument that the Bank violated the general disclosure requirements of the Act is barred by the Act’s one-year period of limitation. 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e). Moreover, all of the loans are exempt from coverage under the Act’s right-of-rescission provision. The right of rescission only applies to loans secured by the debtor’s principal place of residence. 15 U.S.C. § 1635(a). Although the Kuceras alleged that the loans were secured by their principal place of residence, all of the loans show they were secured by a 1978 security agreement, and that they were renewal or refinancing transactions. “[A] transaction which constitutes a refinancing * * * of an existing extension of credit by the same creditor secured by an interest in the same property” is exempt from the right-of-rescission provision. 15 U.S.C. § 1635(e)(1)(B). Therefore, even if the loans were secured by the Kuceras’ principal residence, the seven refinancing transactions are exempt from coverage under the right-of-rescission.
The Kuceras’ complaint also sets forth a variety of additional claims listing numerous federal statutes, state and federal constitutional provisions, and assorted equitable principles as bases of jurisdiction. We have carefully reviewed the complaint and agree with the district court that the additional claims are without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
. The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.
. Many similar actions brought under the Truth in Lending Act have recently been appealed to this Court. See, e.g., K/O Ranch, Inc. v. Norwest Bank of Black Hills, 748 F.2d 1246 (8th Cir.1984). We find the reasoning of this case applicable and controlling here.
What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in any civil law cases including civil government, civil private, and diversity cases. The issue is: "Did the court's ruling on an issue arising out of an alternative dispute resolution process (ADR, settlement conference, role of mediator or arbitrator, etc.) favor the appellant?" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".