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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT