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. 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.

  2. 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).

  3. 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.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT