In a recent case, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk highlighted procedural deficiencies in the bank's filing concerning expert testimony from Conway, which lacks proof of consultation with government attorneys as mandated by Texas civil rules. The bank contends that Conway's insights into HECM loans and their implications on TCB's interests are vital for the court to assess Ginnie Mae's actions. Kacsmaryk noted that without proper demonstration of prior communication, the bank's motion for the court's consideration of Conway's report cannot proceed, emphasizing adherence to legal protocols in expert testimonies and motions.
Judge Kacsmaryk emphasized that the bank's filing lacked confirmation of discussions with government attorneys regarding Conway's testimony, which is essential under Texas civil rules.
The bank argues that Conway's analysis points to a clear distinction between unsecuritized tails and pooled mortgages, asserting the necessity of his expert opinion before the court's decision.
TCB's position hinges on Conway's report, which details the impact of HECM program funding and Ginnie Mae's actions on TCB's property interests.
According to Kacsmaryk, without a proper conference held with affected parties, including government lawyers, the bank's motion to consider Conway's testimony could not proceed.
Collection
[
|
...
]