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 KALK.AN, et al. , 	§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiffs,
vs.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION (FANNIE MAE), et al. ,
Defe ndants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:24-cv-2548
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Before this Court is Defendant Federal National Mortgage Association's ("Fannie Mae")
Motion for Appointment of a Receiver, Temporary Restraining Order, and Other Preliminary
Relief. (Doc. No. 50). Plaintiff Piney Point 2023 , LLC ("Piney Point") filed its Objection and
Response in Opposition to Defendant Fannie Mae's Emergency Motion. (Doc. No. 58). After
reviewing the pleadings, the applicable law, and hearing oral arguments, this Court GRANTS
Fannie Mae the Temporary Restraining Order 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") and Piney Point
currently own the Property, and Fannie Mae holds a deed of trust on the Property securing a loan.
(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 this present motion. (Doc. No. 50 at 2).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
November 21, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:24-cv-02548 Document 64 Filed 11/21/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

In conjunction with its request for the Court to appoint a receiver over the property, Fannie
Mae seeks a temporary restraining order ("TRO") focused on preventing the property's current
owner and his employees from interfering with the receiver's efforts to manage the property. (Id.
at 21-22). Plaintiff argues that Fannie Mae has not met the requisite TRO standard, and so this
TRO should not be granted. (Doc. No. 58 at 13-14).
II.
The purpose of a TRO is to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm until the
court makes a final decision on injunctive relief. Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters
& Auto Truck Drivers Loe. No. 70 ofAlameda Cnty., 415 U.S. 423 , 439 (1974). To obtain a TRO,
an applicant must satisfy the following four elements: (1) substantial likelihood of success on the
merits; (2) substantial threat of irreparable injury; (3) the threatened injury outweighs any harm
the order might cause to the defendant; and ( 4) the injunction will not disserve the public interest.
Enrique Bernat F , SA . v. Guadalajara, Inc., 210 F.3d 439, 442 (5th Cir. 2000). The decision of
whether to grant or deny a TRO is within the Court's discretion. Moore v. Brown, 868 F.3d 398,
402 (5th Cir. 2017).
First, Fannie Mae has established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits regarding
its breach of contract counterclaim against Piney Point and Kalkan. Fannie Mae has demonstrated
that Piney Point is in default on the loan agreement between the parties with no imminent hope
(short of a property sale) of bringing its note current. The bankruptcy stay has been lifted, and
foreclosure by Fannie Mae appears to be imminent. Next, Fannie Mae has established a substantial
threat of irreparable injury. The state of the Property has been declining, and if the Property's value
continues to decline, then Fannie Mae's interest in its collateral will be jeopardized. Fannie Mae
2
Case 4:24-cv-02548 Document 64 Filed 11/21/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

has also shown that the threatened damage outweighs any harm this Order might cause to Kalkan
and Piney Point. In fact, at this stage, this Order actually works to Plaintiffs' benefit. Moreover,
this TRO allows Kalkan to keep his corporate office on the Property undisturbed. Further, Kalkan
and Pin ey Point both agreed that maintaining the Property and its rents is a priority for them as
well. Finall y, this TRO does not disserve the public interest. This TRO will maintain the Property
and ensure necessary repairs for safety and health are promptly made under the direction of the
receiver. As a result, the health and safety of the Property's current tenants is aided with this TRO.
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 demonstrated the four elements
necessa ry to obtain a TRO.
Accordingl y, the Court hereby ORDERS that Fannie Mae's Motion for Appointment of a
Receiver, Temporary Restraining Order, and Other Preliminary Relief is GRANTED as to its
request fo r a Temporary Restraining Order. (Doc. No. 50). It will address the request for a receiver
in a separate order.
T he Court further ORDERS that Fercan E. 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.
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
Case 4:24-cv-02548 Document 64 Filed 11/21/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

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.
Kalkan is not required to vacate his corporate office which both parties indicated is located
on the Property; 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.
This Temporary Restraining Order shall expire on December 5, 2025, unless otherwise
instructed by this Court. Fannie Mae, or the Receiver appointed by a separate order, is directed to
post a bond with the clerk of the court in the amount of$10,000. This Temporary Restraining Order
is not effective until the bond is posted, and Plaintiffs receive actual notice of this Order and its
contents. The Court will hold a status conference on December 2, 2025, at 10:00AM.
It is so ordered.
VSigned on this the~ day of November 2025.
Andrew S. Hanen
United States District Judge
4
Case 4:24-cv-02548 Document 64 Filed 11/21/25 in TXSD Page 4 of 4