Opinion ID: 778211
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: CRA performance evaluations

Text: 95 Finally, Flagstar contends that the district court erred in excluding Flagstar's proposed Exhibits 331, 332, and 341. These exhibits consisted of Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) performance evaluations by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), the federal regulatory agency charged with supervising Flagstar. The purpose of the CRA is to require each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority when examining financial institutions, to encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions. 12 U.S.C. § 2901(b). In excluding evidence of performance evaluations performed by the OTS to determine whether Flagstar was complying with the CRA, the district court stated: I finding nothing arguably relevant to any of the issues in this case. What [the performance evaluations] show is overall Flagstar had a relatively good compliance program. It has nothing to do with the issues in this case. 96 The plaintiffs have pointed out that Flagstar did not respond to the plaintiffs' motion in limine to prohibit introduction of the CRA performance evaluations. This again constitutes a waiver of this argument on appeal. Niecko v. Emro Mktg. Co., 973 F.2d 1296, 1299 (6th Cir.1992) (It is well settled law that this court will not consider an error or issue which could have been raised below but was not.). Moreover, after reviewing the record, we would not likely have found the district court's exclusion of the CRA performance evaluations to be reversible error. Huey, 230 F.3d at 228.