ILNews

Group criticizes foreclosure mediation programs

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A report released today by the National Consumer Law Center examining foreclosure mediation programs believes states, including Indiana, need to make substantial changes before the programs can be effective.

In "State and Local Foreclosure Mediation Programs: Can They Save Homes?" the NCLC looked at 25 programs in 14 states, all which started in 2008 or 2009. Senate Enrolled Act 492, which took effect July 1, requires lenders to inform mortgage holders about their right to participate in a settlement conference if the lender files an action to foreclose and if the borrower meets certain criteria, such as assuring that the home is the borrower's primary residence.

According to the report, court-supervised mediation programs will be more beneficial to homeowners if the lender is required to give the homeowner a document showing its affordable loan calculation; the lender produces specified documents, such as loan originating documents; the lender complies with all mediation obligations in good faith and establishes proof of the mortgage holder's standing and status as the real party in interest; and the lender is required to document its considered specific alternatives to foreclosure.

SEA 492, now Indiana Code Section 32-30-10.5, requires lenders to give homeowners notice they have 30 days after the notice is served to schedule the settlement conference; a conference must be conducted no later than 60 days after the date of notice. The act requires the lender to provide certain documents to engage in good faith negotiations.

According to the report, there are several flaws in Indiana's newly implemented settlement mediation program. It lacks formal systems for tracking most basic data on outcomes of mediations or conferences. The program requires homeowners to opt-in within 30 days and the NCLC believes this may exclude some homeowners who don't understand the opt-in procedures. Indiana's program also doesn't involve direct court supervision.

The law center would like to see direct court supervision over the enforcement of lender obligations to mediate. It also wants states to make participation by homeowners automatic; allow mediation requests to be made up until the time of the foreclosure sale; stay all proceedings until it's determined the lender complied in good faith with program obligations; provide funding for outreach, housing counselors, and qualified counsel for homeowners; prohibit lenders from shifting its attorneys' fees and costs to the homeowner; and require junior lien holders to be notified and allowed to participate in the mediation process.

"Under most of the existing foreclosure mediation programs, servicers have all the discretion and homeowners have little or no power," study author and NCLC staff attorney Geoffrey Walsh said in a statement. "If the programs continue to demand little or no accountability from servicers, they will likely go the way of federal efforts to control foreclosures that have failed as a result of relying on voluntary compliance by the lending industry."

NCLC is a nonprofit organization that works with and offers training to legal service, government, private attorneys, and community groups and organizations representing low-income families. It seeks marketplace justice on behalf of low-income and vulnerable Americans.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT