Kalkan et al v. Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
FERCAN E KALKAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION (FANNIE MAE), et al. ,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:24-cv-2548
ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
Before the Court is Defendant Federal National Mortgage Association's ("Fannie Mae")
Application for Temporary Injunction and Brief in Support (Doc. No. 85), to which Plaintiff Piney
Point 2023, LLC ("Piney Point") filed its Response in Opposition (Doc. No. 89). On December
19 , 2025, the Court held a hearing on the motion. After reviewing the pleadings, the applicable
law, and hearing oral arguments, this Court GRANTS Fannie Mae a Temporary Injunction as
detailed below.
I.
The case centers around a multi-family unit property located at 2601 Lazy Hollow Drive,
Houston, Texas 77063 (the "Property" ). Plaintiff Fercan E. Kalkan ("Kalkan") owns Piney Point
which currently owns the Property, and Fannie Mae holds a deed of trust on the Property securing
its loan. (Doc. No. 19 at 3; Doc. No. 58 at 4). Kalkan also executed a Guaranty of Non-Recourse
Obligations. (Doc. No 19 at 5). Also relevant, is Piney Point's ongoing bankruptcy proceeding. In
re Piney Point 2023 LLC , Case No. 25-30128 (Bankr. S.D. Tex.). As a result of proceedings in the
Bankruptcy Court, the automatic stay was terminated on November 15 , 2025 , thereby allowing
Fannie Mae to bring its counterclaim and its request for the Court to appoint a receiver and
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
December 19, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:24-cv-02548 Document 92 Filed 12/19/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 6

additional injunctive relief. (Doc. No. 50 at 2). Fannie Mae also brought its crossclaim against
Kalkan. (Doc. No. 57).
On November 21, 2025, this Court granted Fannie Mae's request for the appointment of a
receiver and appointed Tarantino Properties, Inc. as the Receiver in this matter. (Doc. No. 63). That
same day, this Court also granted Fannie Mae's request for a Temporary Restraining Order, which
was set to expire on December 5, 2025. (Doc. No. 64). By agreement of the parties, that TRO was
extended to expire on December 19, 2025. (Doc. No. 72).
As a result of that impending expiration, Fannie Mae filed the present motion asking this
Court to issue a Temporary Injunction to be in effect until the foreclosure of the property or the
time of trial, whichever comes first. (Doc. No. 85). Piney Point asks this Court to deny that request.
(Doc. No. 89).
II.
To be entitled to a preliminary injunction, the applicant must show: "(1) a substantial
likelihood that [they] will prevail on the merits, (2) a substantial threat that (they] will suffer
irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, (3) (their] substantial injury outweighs the
threatened harm to the party whom [they] seek to enjoin, and (4) granting the preliminary
injunction will not disserve the public interest." Te xas Me d. Providers Performing Abortion Serv s.
v. Lakey, 667 F.3d 570, 574 (5th Cir. 2012). "A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy
which should not be granted unless the party seeking it has ' clearly carried the burden of persuasion
on all four requirements.'" Id. The decision whether to grant or deny a preliminary injunction is
within this Court's discretion. Mississippi Power & Light Co . v. United Gas Pipe Line Co ., 760
F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir. 1985).
2
Case 4:24-cv-02548 Document 92 Filed 12/19/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 6

1. 	Likelihood of Success on the Merits
The Court finds Fannie Mae has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its
breach of contract counterclaim against Piney Point. Fannie Mae is the holder of borrower's loan
documents, which were guaranteed by Kalkan, and has a security interest in the Property. On May
30, 2024, Kalkan and Piney Point admitted, acknowledged, and agreed they were in default on the
Loan by signing its agreement with Fannie Mae stating as much. (Hrg. Ex. 15 at 3). Through this
document, Kalkan and Piney Point also agreed that the Loan Document was valid, fully
enforceable, and had been accelerated by Fannie Mae under the terms of the agreement. (Hrg. Ex.
15 at 5). The Court heard testimony from Joey Davenport, Fannie Mae's Senior Asset Manager
overseeing the Property, who testified that Piney Point and Kalkan continue to be in default, and
that the default has not been cured. This testimony was uncontradicted. This establishes Fannie
Mae 's likelihood of success on the merits on its counterclaim.
2. 	Substantial Threat of Irreparable Injury
The Court heard testimony on the state of the Property, and although the parties sharply
di sagree on who is the cause of that state, everyone seems to agree the Property's value has been
declining. Piney Point rightly points out that this Temporary Injunction does not impact the
Receivership the Court has already put in place at the Property; however, if the Receiver is unable
to continue managing the Property and making repairs due to Kalkan's interference, then the
Property's value might continue to decline. The continued deterioration of the Property and
possible effects on the safety to its tenants presents a substantial threat of irreparable injury to
Fannie Mae, who holds the security interest in the Property.
3
Case 4:24-cv-02548 Document 92 Filed 12/19/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 6

3. 	Threat to the Movant Outweighs the Harm to the Opposing Party
The threat to the Property's value also outweighs any perceived threat to Kalkan or Piney
Point. This Order does not address any foreclosure of the Property. It only ensures Kalkan and
Piney Point will seek relief in their previously chosen venues (this Court or the Bankruptcy Court)
if relief regarding any future foreclosure is sought. Kalkan still is able to maintain his office on the
Property but must not interfere with the Receiver 's efforts to manage and improve the Property.
4. 	Public Interest
The health and safety of the Property's current tenants are aided by this Temporary
Injunction. As the Receiver continues to use funds advanced by Fannie Mae to make needed repairs
to the Property without Kalkan's interference, the safety (and potentially the value) of the Property
will increase. Kalkan and Piney Point both agree that maintaining the Property and its rents is also
in their best interest.
III.
The Court finds based on its review of the motion and response, accompanying exhibits,
the applicable law, and oral arguments, that Fannie Mae has met the requirements for a Temporary
Injunction.
Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that Fannie Mae's Application for Temporary
Injunction and Brief in Support (Doc. No. 85) is GRANTED.
T he Court further ORDERS that Piney Point, Kalkan, and all persons acting in concert
with him, namely his employees working at the Property, are enjoined from:
1. 	Interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the receiver's possession, control, management,
and operation of the Property and collateral, including rent collections under the present
assignment of rents.
4
Case 4:24-cv-02548 Document 92 Filed 12/19/25 in TXSD Page 4 of 6

2. 	Communicating to tenants or vendors any instruction that conflicts with the receiver's or
Fannie Mae's directives regarding rent payment, repairs, maintenance, insurance, taxes,
utilities, or other critical services.
3. 	Collecting, diverting, concealing, or dissipating rents, issues, profits, or other proceeds of
the Property, or using such funds for any purpose other than as directed by the receiver or
the Court. (All funds received from the operation of the apartment complex shall be placed
in the account set aside by the Bankruptcy Court for this purpose. Those funds will only be
disbursed on items or for purposes specifically approved by that court.)
4. 	Removing, transferring, concealing, damaging, or otherwise diminishing any part of the
Property or Collateral, including personal property on which Fannie Mae has a security
interest.
5. 	Attempting to file anything or otherwise initiate any new legal action to stop, restrain or
otherwise avoid the nonjudicial foreclosure sale scheduled to be held on January 6, 2026.
Any such action or filing must be submitted in either this case (Case No. 4:24-cv-02548)
or the pending bankruptcy case (Case No. 25- 30128 (Bankr. S.D. Tex.).
The $10,000 bond filed in support of the TRO shall remain on file in support of this
Temporary Injunction.
While he owns an interest in the Property, Kalkan is not required to vacate his corporate
office; however, he is required to keep in contact and provide all documentation concerning the
Property that the receiver needs to operate the Property in a safe and appropriate manner.
Nevertheless, Kalkan must comply with this Order.
5
Case 4:24-cv-02548 Document 92 Filed 12/19/25 in TXSD Page 5 of 6

This Temporary Injunction shall be in effect until the foreclosure of the property or the time
of trial, whichever comes first.
It is so ordered.
Signed on this the ___ti_ day of December, 2025.
~h\LAndrew S. Hanen
United States District Judge
6
Case 4:24-cv-02548 Document 92 Filed 12/19/25 in TXSD Page 6 of 6