Texas Capital Bank opposes a short judgment in Ginnie Mae Suit
That submission also claimed that TCB “in this case no longer has remaining rights or interests in the property.” This stems from a decision of October 2024 by Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, in which TCB claimed that Ginnie Mae has violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by extinguishing his first priority provision on certain reverse mortgage collateral.
The judge did not agree with that and instead said that Ginnie Mae “had the right to extinguish and end RMF and to take absolute ownership of [the] Mortgage portfolio. “
In the new submission of 21 February, TCB said that the government’s claim “that Ginnie Mae had legal authority to extinguish TCB’s retention right” about the collateral of collateral is “incorrect”. Congress It is clear that the Ginnie Mae authority to support the effects that the company guarantees clearly, the bank argued.
‘[The government] Can not circumvent the limitations of the congress by claiming that the tails are part of an “indivisible” mortgage, “the bank said in its submission. “That position is contrary to the statute and would give Ginnie Mae a windfall – the right to $ 28 million to collateral that Ginnie Mae has never guaranteed and that TCB provided on the basis of Ginnie Mae’s Assurance of Protection.”
The bank also claims that the nature of Ginnie Mae’s Home Equity Conversion MortGage (HECM) -driven Securities (HMBS) program itself shows that the mortgages are divisible because it is a fundamental characteristic of the program that is part of the mortgages in The securitization Pole and others (such as the tails) are not. ‘
Government lawyers argue the opposite, but TCB claims that the complexity of both the HECM and the HMBS programs “a complete investigation of the facts, including the opinion of experts, justifies before it is determined about applying the legal authority from Ginnie Mae on these structures. “
At the government’s request for summary proceedings, Ginnie Mae would enable tens of millions of dollars to eradicate TCB assets when TCB did absolutely nothing wrong without even leaving TCB to prove Ginnie Mae, “said The bank. “This court must refuse the breach of the defendants.”
In their own submission last month who responded to KACSMARYK’s statement in October, government lawyers argued that TCB “in this case” “no longer has any remaining rights or interests in the real estate. “
That ruling proves “fatal for the two remaining counts of TCB” and gives Ginnie Mae the right to a short judgment, the government argued. It is of the opinion that other elements of the bank’s complaint are invalid, because “TCB cannot prove that it has not had any ownership rights that have been disrupted.” Government lawyers also claim that every potential claim that the government has not paid, the required wells on the loans will be refuted by the official file.
In an earlier joint application in which additional time was requested, the government was given until mid -March to respond to the submission of TCB that disputed the brief judgment.
This is the latter in a lawsuit that was initially filed in October 2023. TCB originally claimed that Ginnie Mae ‘in exchange for this’ had put out for no consideration, TCB’s first priority law on tens of millions of dollars to collateral that came out of the collateral The collateral came out of the collateral that came out of the collateral that came from the collateral that came from the collateral from the collateral came out of the collateral that came from the collateral from the observant [FHA]-Stord [HECM] program.”
TCB argues that this was after Ginnie Mae reportedly had to be used to TCB to “prevent a catastrophic disruption of the HECM program.” In exchange for lending money to RMF, TCB claimed that it received an initial priority right “on certain HECM -superior”. The bank described it as ‘critically important’, because without this trusting the only collateral TCB, it was a bankrupt enterprise.
