Lawyers for both parties Ginnie Mae and Texas Capital Bank (TCB) is asking questions about HECM’s tail collateral from the magistrate overseeing its case U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas The ruling was adjourned on separate motions filed by the parties: one seeking a change of venue to a different court and the other seeking partial summary judgment.
The move was a rare moment of agreement between the two sides in the case, although they each came to the agreement from two different angles. TCB is seeking partial summary judgment on the first count of its original court complaint, which alleges that Ginnie Mae violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by foreclosing its first-priority lien on certain reverse mortgage collateral. .
Ginnie Mae, on the other hand, is seeking to have the case moved to a Dallas court, arguing that TCB violated a “forum selection clause” in its tail agreement by filing the case in Amarillo. reverse mortgage financing (RMF), the agreement at the center of the dispute.
TCB’s current deadline to respond to the forum change motion is July 8, while Ginnie Mae has until July 18 to respond to the partial summary judgment.time to fully respond to their respective claims house lineReverse Mortgage Daily (RMD).
“The parties respectfully request a 14-day extension to respond to the Motion for Change of Venue and the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, respectively,” the document states. “The parties request an extension to ensure adequate time to review and respond to the motion and not to serve an improper purpose or delay. and submit this request.”
If granted by the magistrate judge, TCB would have until July 22 to respond to the motion for a change of venue, and government attorneys until August 1 to respond to the motion for summary judgment. Also included in the filing is a sample order granting the request that the judge may choose to enforce.
TCB seeks to “confirm and protect its rights to tens of millions of dollars of collateral over which it has a first priority lien, but [Ginnie Mae is] continued to be transferred and dissipated without any statutory rights – all of which was denied by this Court’s judgment [Ginnie Mae’s] Motion to Dismiss Dismissal on All Grounds [they] A court filing previously reviewed by RMD said they had filed their positions.
At the same time, the government claimed that “TCB’s lawsuit ‘involves[s]’Tail Agreement and Loan Documents […]. Therefore, TCB is obligated to litigate in Dallas County. TCB ignored this obligation and chose to file the lawsuit in Amarillo, which is unrelated to the lawsuit,” the government said in a change of venue document filed last month.
this United States Supreme Court The forum selection clause was previously stipulated to be enforced. Government lawyers argued that despite the agreement between TCB and RMF, the bank’s dispute with the government related to the tail agreement, meaning the clause was enforceable in the case.
TCB originally filed a lawsuit against Ginnie Mae in October 2023, accusing the state-owned company of “foreclosing TCB’s first-priority lien on tens of millions of dollars of collateral without consideration of any consideration,” The lien arises from [FHA]- Sponsorship [HECM] program.”
Ginnie Mae reportedly sought help from TCB to avoid “catastrophic damage to the HECM program.” TCB said that in return for the loan to RMF, it obtained a first-priority lien on “certain HECM collateral,” which the bank called “critical” because in the absence of the lien, it was the only collateral TCB could rely on. The product is a bankrupt company of RMF.
In subsequent filings, Ginnie Mae denied the allegations beyond material facts related to the agreements signed by the parties and the regulation of the HMBS program. Although Ginnie Mae sought to dismiss the case, the trial judge allowed much of the case to proceed and dismissed only a small portion of the original complaint.
District Judge Lee Ann Reno previously granted a request for a prior extension without objection to better accommodate the discovery process in the case.
