Notes
Burke Case Documents
Legal Notes & Law References
Hopkins Cases
Mark D Hopkins Search Results Page (Leagle)
Hopkins, Mark asserting lead counsel role for Bank on appeal as Hopkins & Williams.
Hopkins, Mark asserting lead counsel role for Bank on appeal from County Court. (Hopkins Law)
HopkinsWILLIAMS represented bank at trial and on appeal. Hopkins asking for 14 day extension of time.
mark@hopkinswilliams.com shelley@hopkinswilliams.com
Citimortgage replaced Hopkins Law (Mark and Shelley) with Akerman lawyers in Dallas when it was a straightforward case?
Hopkins asked for 30 days extension at 5th on strength it was xmas and he had other cases, including Deutsche v Burke in Fifth Circuit.
mark@hopkinslawtexas.com shelley@hopkinslawtexas.com
Hopkins & Williams withdrawal from client representation as they are “insolvent” and cannot pay fees.
Kopecky in settlement seeking extn of time. Hopkins for BDFTE as counsel.
Forcible Detainer case – Hopkins Law represented bank at both trial and on this appeal.
Hopkins represented DB/IndyMac along with Laura Hayes, now Akerman (Settlepou) and interesting is one Brian Casey, his firm address is Bee Caves, Austin, representing defendant Southwest Funding LP
Mark Hopkins for Bank.
The rules of civil procedure allow a party to challenge whether a lawsuit is being prosecuted without authority. Tex. R. Civ. P. 12. If a motion is filed under rule 12, the challenged attorney must appear and show her authority to act. Id. At the hearing on Perkins’s motions and Chase’s motion for summary judgment, attorney Mark Hopkins produced Wightman’s affidavit, in which he averred that he retained Peggy Heller to handle Perkins’s default and that he authorized Heller to retain Hopkins to serve as local counsel and assist with the litigation. Wightman averred that Heller and Hopkins were authorized to act on Chase’s behalf in the proceeding against Perkins. Chase’s response stated that “Exhibit A,” an “Affidavit of Representative of Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation,” was attached as proof.
By Deed of Trust, Grantor conveyed to THOMAS F. VETTERS, as Trustee, certain property for the purpose of securing and enforcing payment of the indebtedness and obligations therein described, including but not limited to the Note and all renewals and ex1ensions of the note. M>\RK HOPKINS; PAUL CetLEY. JR., A:f±!SON CW.NDLER., M. MATTHEW WILLIAMS, JeHN L YNCJ !, EMILY STR68PE-eR-MIGm-W-Z.lENJ:Z was appointed by an Appointment of Substitute Trustee executed by WELLS FARGO BANK. N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR OPTION ONE MORTGAGE LOA..N TRUST 2006-3, ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-3, the current mortgagee of the Deed of Trust
Hopkins, Mark for Bank
Hopkins, Mark for Bank on appeal as Hopkins & Williams.
Hopkins, Mark for Bank (mandate issued).
Shelley L. Douglass, Addison, TX, Mark D. Hopkins, Hopkins & Williams PLLC, Austin, TX, for Appellee. Unfortunately case file destroyed after 6 years so no pdf or searchable bg available now.
Hart requesting extn of time, Hopkins for Bank (hopkins & williams)
Richards requesting extn of time, Hopkins for Bank (hopkins & williams)
Hopkins, Mark actually representing a crook other than himself, against State of Texas in Austin case of BankOpp!
TRO request against pending writ of possession / eviction. Bank represented by Hopkins, Mark of Hopkins & Williams
Hopkins came in on after trial found for homeowners in this wrongful foreclosure in Dallas case. It’s been put on hold by appellate court till 2019.
Forcible detainer case in messy divorce.
Chalise Rheana Estes, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., Addison, Mark Daniel Hopkins, Michael Matthew Williams, Hopkins & Williams, PLLC, Austin, for Appellee.
Hopkins is attorney for VRM in this foreclosure case.
Mark Hopkins for the bank, affirmed on appeal.
(3) the affidavit of James McGuire, who averred that he overheard Mark Hopkins, counsel for the Attorney Defendants, tell a different trial judge in a different proceeding that a ruling in that proceeding could impact the outcome of the present case. None of this “evidence” created a fact issue as to whether Wells Fargo was the holder of the note.