Since the initial filing of a suit about the extinguishment of a concern lien connected to the loan portfolio security of Reverse Mortgage Funding (RMF), Texas Capital Bank (TCB) has argued in court that it was provided spoken guarantees from high-ranking authorities at Ginnie Mae and the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) that its interests would be secured.
But federalgovernment lawyers representing Ginnie Mae (GNMA) state that it doesn’t matter whether or not such spoken assures were made. The defense is arguing in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas that spoken arrangements are not lawfully binding and the case needto be dismissed, according to court filings evaluated by RMD.
In addition to rejecting that any such guarantees were made, lawyers for the federalgovernment argue they are immaterial, stating that “even if such guarantees happened, such assures would have no legal impact.”
New federalgovernment filing
In addition to the contention that spoken guarantees have no effect on their contract, federalgovernment lawyers compete that neither the Administrative Procedure Act or the Federal Tort Claims Act “provides a system to broaden TCB’s rights beyond those offered in its agreements.”
Instead, TCB needto rely mainly on the performed contract for any legal treatments, “and its contract specifically maintains GNMA’s rights, consistingof the right to snuffout RMF’s whole interest in the homeloans, which uses to TCB’s derivate interest in the Tails,” the filing checksout.
Attorneys for the U.S. federalgovernment have consistently askedfor for the declares to be dismissed.
The revealed aut