ILNews

Court pilot programs boost foreclosure conferences

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


Foreclosure rates have remained at record highs for Indiana the past few years, and a court program to help homeowners hasn't been as successful as hoped. That's now changing.

Court employees find it troubling that only a small number of eligible homeowners have participated in settlement conferences to save their homes. But one court's pilot program to improve how it communicates with borrowers may help. By being more aggressive in letting borrowers know their options to at least try to save their homes has already had success in getting more people to request settlement conferences.

Statewide, only 2 percent of homeowners facing foreclosures have requested settlement conferences under the state statute that went into effect in July 2009.

But after implementing a few changes to how most courts around the state were handling settlement conferences, a pilot program in Allen County that started in February has already seen a significant increase in the number of requested settlement conferences. Other counties are hoping for similar success rates, according to an announcement April 20 from the Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Foreclosure Prevention Network.

In the courtroom where Allen Superior Judge Nancy Eshcoff Boyer started the pilot project, Lt. Gov. Becky Skillman discussed these new efforts. The project has court staff directly contact defendants in foreclosures to let them know what a settlement conference is, including what is expected of borrowers.

That court is also doing more to get lenders and servicers to participate in settlement conferences in good faith, including the assignment of one point person on the loan servicer's end who will shepherd the borrower's case so the borrower can have realistic options if he or she is eligible for a loan modification, Judge Boyer said.

The Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority worked with the Supreme Court to determine which counties have the greatest need and are most willing to try the program, said Kathryn Dolan, spokesperson for the Supreme Court.

Other counties that have signed on include Marion and St. Joseph, which started similar programs in their courts in April, and Monroe County is on track to start a program this summer. Programs will be targeted to the needs of the individual counties and geographic regions.

For instance, each court can decide who will contact the borrowers.

In Marion County, a law student is paid a nominal fee to be the logistical coordinator to oversee settlement conferences for foreclosure cases that have been filed in the courtrooms of Superior Judges Cynthia J. Ayers and David J. Dreyer, and Circuit Judge Louis F. Rosenberg.

Judge Ayers said the logistical coordinator sifts through the cases filed in those three courts to determine who is eligible to participate in settlement conferences, which are available only to those who may lose their primary residence and have not yet had a settlement conference.

The logistical coordinator then contacts those parties by letter that a phone conference has been arranged and that they need to have certain financial documents assembled for that phone conference.

The Allen County pilot program is similar, only someone on the court's staff makes the contact because they have chosen not to hire a logistical coordinator.

In both counties, someone will sift through foreclosure cases to find those who are eligible for settlement conferences. They will then notify the borrowers by phone of a preconference, which is the borrower's chance to request a settlement conference and where the homeowner can learn what is needed for a settlement conference in terms of financial documents and other information.

In the past, a homeowner would receive notice of this option, but it would be among a stack of other papers from the lender, often at the bottom of the stack or mixed in with other paperwork.

Even having the courts contact the borrowers directly will make a difference, said Stephanie Reeve, manager of the Indiana Foreclosure Prevention Network.

"According to the new law that went into effect last July, at least 30 days out the lender needs to send a presuit notice. In that notice, they need to include a notice of the borrower's right to request a settlement conference. I noticed IFPN's volume of calls skyrocketed around that time, but only from people when they received presuit notices. The stack of documents they receive when they are foreclosed on is scary and it's written in legalese so they usually don't get that far down. We're also working on making notices more user friendly for the borrowers."

She said she was optimistic about the pilot programs.

"I think settlement conferences and what IFPN has been doing offer the best opportunity for homeowners to come to a resolution. I'm just hoping they'll take advantage of it," she said.

She and others interviewed for this story said they were encouraged by numbers from Allen County.

Of 66 phone conferences set from the start of the program in February until April 20, 29 did not take place, but of those 29 borrowers, five cases had already been worked out in some way, according to statistics reported to the Indiana Supreme Court from Allen Superior Court.

Of those who did call about the program, two borrowers were not eligible, one borrower was eligible but did not request a settlement conference, and the other 34 requested settlement conferences.

Judge Boyer said whether one considers the success rate to be 34 requests out of 66, or 51 percent requesting settlement conferences, or the number of those who actually called and requested settlement conferences, 34 out of 37, or 92 percent, "it's a whole heck of a lot better than 2 percent."

As a result of the telephone conferences, 17 settlement conferences have been set.

"Out of 17, there was as no agreement in two cases, five cases where an agreement was reached and the foreclosure suit was dismissed, and 10 negotiations are continuing," she added.

The five cases that resulted in success included four stay-in-home workouts from adjustments of the terms of the mortgage, and one short sale.

While the cases are considered successful, Judge Boyer said the system itself is difficult to navigate. She said she had heard of cases from facilitators where someone who thought they had a workout later learned that it wasn't communicated to the right person and the foreclosure proceeded even after an agreement was reached at a settlement conference.

While Allen County has had attorney facilitators working as neutrals on settlement conferences since last year, those who've done settlement conferences in Marion County courts have not had neutrals and rarely have attorneys for the borrowers. They will now have facilitators for all settlement conferences, Judge Ayers said.

Facilitators will be paid from a $50 filing fee the Supreme Court recently implemented for all foreclosure filings. After handling at least one block of four settlement conferences for no fee, facilitators can be paid $150 for each block of four settlement conferences they handle.

While Judge Boyer said her court would prefer to have attorneys help as facilitators instead of representing borrowers, Marion County is encouraging attorneys to be facilitators or take on clients and is offering a rate of $25 per settlement conference plus some expenses like parking after they take on a couple cases for no fee.

The system itself may not change overnight, Judge Boyer said, but seeing the program in her court has helped her understand what is working and what isn't.

Because it is a pilot program, she said she has the capability to adjust the way settlement conferences are handled, including how the lenders and borrowers communicate after reaching an agreement. For instance, she said she was considering adding a status conference to her calendar following the settlement conference.

"I will ask facilitators when they have the next round of settlement conferences to ask the servicer and plaintiff's attorney how much time it'll take to process the results. If they say 30 days, then I'll set a status hearing 30 days out to see where things stand at that point," she said.

And while the whole process can be overwhelming, she said, "I'm still hopeful."

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's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT