ILNews

IBA: Mortgage Foreclosure in Marion County

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Ayers-Cynthia-mug Ayers

By The Hon. Cynthia Ayers

In November 2008, the Indianapolis Bar Association Board of Directors approved a resolution authorizing the formation of a new task force charged with finding ways to confront the explosion in mortgage foreclosures in Marion County. The Indianapolis Mortgage Foreclosure Task Force (IMFTF) was established, comprised of volunteer lawyers, judges, and state agency managers. Members included lawyers from the Indiana Bankers Association, the Attorney General’s Office, Legal Services Organization, United Auto Workers Legal Services, the Indiana Mortgage Foreclosure Prevention Network, the Christian Legal Clinic, HUD, debt management agencies, members of the private bar and other concerned citizens.

The initial responsibility of the IMFTF was to determine the magnitude of the mortgage foreclosure crisis and develop an appropriate action plan. The committee developed ideas on how the bar association might help distressed homeowners and lenders and the entire community as a whole. Members quickly realized that in addition to families facing personal financial crisis, banks were being inundated with foreclosed properties. Empty homes were often magnets for criminal activity and consequently, directly related to rapidly falling home values.

Subcommittees were set up to facilitate a diversified approach to critical issues. Three major objectives were identified: court case-management, with the use of Alternate Dispute Resolution methods to promote face-to-face meetings between borrowers and lenders; education and training of lawyers, to facilitate pro bono representation of homeowners; and collaboration with the Indiana Housing Foreclosure Network, to encourage the referral of borrowers to credit counseling and debt management services.

For years, the Indiana foreclosure process followed a general routine. Initially, the lender filed suit after payments were missed, service was obtained on the defendant homeowner, the appropriate pleadings were presented timely to the court, and if done properly, default judgment was entered. Next, the defaulted borrowers either voluntarily left or stayed in possession until evicted after a Sheriff’s Sale. As the economic crisis worsened nationwide, it became increasingly apparent that an opportunity for settlement discussions may be a better approach for all parties. Based upon success in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Connecticut, and Illinois, the IMFTF drafted a local rule, later approved by the Marion Superior Court in March 2009. The local rule required a settlement conference between borrower and lender in owner-occupied foreclosure cases.

Concurrently, the federal government required banks to offer loan modification programs to eligible borrowers. In July 2009, SB492, modeled in large part after the aforementioned Marion County local rule and sponsored by Senator Karen Tallian of Portage, Indiana, was enacted. (I.C. 32-30-10.5 et seq.). SB492 made settlement conferences available to all homeowners who requested them within certain timelines.

Since the passage of the local rule and SB492, much progress has been made. In Marion Civil Court IV, for example, 197 settlement conferences have occurred; of those, 27% resulted in dismissal of the foreclosure action and 15% are pending with proposed settlements.

In early 2010, the Indiana Supreme Court introduced pilot projects in Marion, Allen, Monroe, and St. Joseph counties which provide logistical coordinators and facilitators who manage the settlement conferences. In Marion County, three courts are part of the pilot program: Circuit Court and Civil Courts IV and X. This program has streamlined the foreclosure process, proving highly beneficial to successful outcomes. In-person facilitation has insured good faith settlement negotiation between borrower and lender.

In addition to these measures, other members of the IMFTF were educating and training volunteer attorneys to represent borrowers pro bono. To date, over 1000 attorneys statewide have received foreclosure training. Members involved with foreclosure prevention at the state level have also continued to work by keeping the crisis statistics current, providing access to twenty-four hour debt counseling services, and affording relief to homeowners through the “Get Hope Get Help Hotline,” (1-800-382-5516).

In sum, the Indianapolis Mortgage Foreclosure Task Force has met many of its goals and continues to move forward. Improvements are needed to encourage and expedite case resolution, such as the linking of homeowners directly to a legal-advice hotline. A better process for the exchange of information between debt counselors and case facilitators may reduce duplicative efforts. Additionally, the establishment of a confidential E-Repository for all settlement-related documents could eliminate cancelled meetings.

The Indianapolis Bar Association can be proud of the accomplishments of the Mortgage ForeclosureTask Force. Desperate times have called for a much needed change in mortgage foreclosure case management and local lawyers and judges have answered the call.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT