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. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  2. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

  3. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  4. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  5. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

ADVERTISEMENT