ILNews

Courts consider foreclosure issues

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

To address recent news regarding foreclosures – including a handful of national banks putting holds on foreclosure proceedings regarding their lenders – participants in the foreclosure prevention efforts of the Indiana Supreme Court, including judges in pilot programs around the state for settlement conferences, held a conference call Oct. 19 to address these issues.

During the call, the participants addressed two main issues, according to Elizabeth Daulton, project manager of the Mortgage Foreclosure Trial Court Assistance Project, which is overseen by the Indiana Supreme Court Division of State Court Administration.

The first concern is the “robo-signing,” where it was reported in the media in the last few weeks that some banks had someone who wasn’t the correct person sign off on foreclosure paperwork without giving it enough attention to make sure it was done properly.

“However, this is just the tip of the iceberg,” Daulton said via e-mail Oct. 21. “A second problem is the fact that many plaintiff lenders have filed suit and proceeded to judgment without sufficient documentation establishing that they are a holder in due course of the underlying debt. Judy Fox, who serves as a facilitator in St. Joseph County (and also leads a legal clinic at Notre Dame Law School) says that her clinic doesn’t handle that many foreclosure cases, but a staggering number of them involve insufficient documentation – so she believes the problem is widespread.”

She added that lenders that had “robo-signed” paperwork have been “re-certifying” pending foreclosure cases, “but this only involves checking the accuracy of the amounts owed (and checking the computer system for errors). Recertifying does not involve investigation of the note’s ownership or tracking back the various assignments, many of which are undated,” she said.

While no definite cause of action was decided during the call, a number of ideas have been shared, and there will be a follow-up call Oct. 28, the same day Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum will host a daylong CLE about mortgage foreclosures as a follow-up to CLE seminars that took place over the summer of 2009.

Daulton said new guidelines would be decided on in the coming weeks that “should apply to all pending cases, as well as post-judgment, pre-sheriff’s sale cases. After the sheriff’s sale has taken place, there may not be much recourse for the borrower (though this is something else we’re looking into),” she said.
 

Rehearing "New approach to foreclosure prevention successful" IL Sept. 15-28, 2010

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT