Karly Rodine focuses her practice on complex commercial litigation, real estate litigation and financial services. She represents a wide variety of clients in federal and state court litigation matters, and advises such clients in all facets of best practices and dispute resolution. She has extensive experience leading litigation teams in both federal and state courts across the United States.
Prior to joining the firm, Ms. Rodine was a partner at Crouch & Ramey, a litigation law firm based in Dallas, Texas, where her practice included a broad range of commercial litigation matters, including financial product disputes and business torts, with particular experience in complex multi-party real estate litigation and fiduciary litigation. Ms. Rodine has represented banks, lenders, loan servicers, national electronic registry systems, and other financial services companies in a variety of matters involving mortgage fraud, predatory lending, the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA), Federal Regulation Z (Reg Z), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), the Federal Housing Act (FHA) and regulations of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Equal Opportunity Credit Act (ECOA), state credit and consumer protection act (CCPA) claims, state debt collections acts, state unfair and deceptive trade practices acts, the Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act (UFTA), the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and state foreclosure laws.
While attending law school, Ms. Rodine was a member and served as the Administrative Director of the Computer Law Review and Technology Journal.
Ms. Rodine was recognized as a Texas “Super Lawyer” in 2014, 2015 and 2016 and a "Rising Star" in 2014 and the seven years immediately preceding by Texas Monthly and Law & Politics magazines.
Served as lead litigation counsel representing Wells Fargo and MERS in asserting their rights as the actual parties in interest to challenge a lawsuit filed solely against the originating lender, which resulted in an agreed judgment expunging a valid and continuing mortgage lien. The firm obtained summary judgment on its bill of review and request for declaratory judgment vacating the prior judgment due to lack of notice and ordering the deed of trust a valid, subsisting and enforceable lien on the property. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. v. Kingman Holdings, et. al, 219th Dist. Ct. of Collin County, Texas, Cause No. 219-02527-2014.
Represented lender and loan servicer as lead counsel in a case involving allegations of fraud, trespass to try title and breach of contract. Borrowers sought actual damages, exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees. Ms. Rodine successfully removed the case and obtained dismissal of the complaint with prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Davis v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 1 F.Supp.3d 638 (S.D. Tex. 2014).
Served as lead counsel for lender in litigation initiated by the Internal Revenue Service against a borrower in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. While the case was filed over non-payment of income taxes, the most disputed issues included the borrowers’ participation in a fraudulent mortgage elimination scheme and whether lender’s mortgage would be honored during liquidation of the borrowers’ assets. The District Court granted the lender’s motion for summary judgment in full, declaring any transfer of the business property null and void, any attempt to diminish or extinguish lien rights null and void, and ordering the United States to pay the proceeds from any sale of the mortgaged property to the lender first and in full. The Tenth Circuit affirmed. United States v. Green, No. 12-CV-441-JED-FHM, 2015 WL 1482508 (N.D. Okla. Mar. 31, 2015), motion for relief from judgment denied, No. 12-CV441-JED-FHM, 2015 WL 2452903 (N.D. Okla. May 22, 2015), and aff’d sub nom. United States v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, No. 15-5032, 2015 WL 7567269 (10th Cir. Nov. 25, 2015).
Served as counsel for a hard money lender and its investors in (1) a federal lawsuit brought by the title insurer regarding coverage and (2) Texas District Court litigation filed by the lender against the title company, title insurer and fee attorney alleging fraud, misrepresentation, and breach of contract related to the origination of a commercial real estate loan. The federal court granted the lender’s motion to dismiss as to all claims brought by the title insurer. The state court denied the title parties’ motion for summary judgment in full, prompting the remainder of the claims to settle. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Stallion Funding, LLC, No. 3:10-CV-0511-L, 2010 WL 4275278 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 29, 2010); Stallion Funding, LLC v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp., 134th Dist. Ct. of Dallas County, Texas, Cause No. 10-07371.
Insights View All
Southern Methodist University School of Law, J.D. (2004)
Texas A&M University, B.S. (1996)
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
American Bar Association, Member
Dallas Bar Association, Member
Dallas Association of Young Lawyers, Member
National Association of Women Lawyers, Member
Rockwall Bar Association, Member
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.