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

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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT