ILNews

Indiana IOLTA expected to benefit from Bank of America settlement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana’s Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Account program is expecting to receive a portion of the federal government’s historic multi-billion-dollar settlement with Bank of America, bringing a much-needed influx of funds to the program that has suffered dramatic declines in revenues as a result of the economic recession.

Charles Dunlap, executive director of the Indiana Bar Foundation which administers the state’s IOLTA program, said he is pleased with the additional resources but cautioned the financial help will not arrive immediately.

“It could take several years for the funds to be distributed so relief for people struggling with mortgage foreclosure could still be more than a year away,” he said.

Dunlap was recently elected president of the National Association of IOLTA programs. He has been a member of the national organization for 13 years.

The U.S. Department of Justice announced the $16.65 billion settlement Aug. 21 to resolve federal and state claims against Bank of America and its former and current subsidiaries, including Countrywide Financial Corp. and Merrill Lynch, for financial fraud leading to and during the Great Recession.

This is the largest civil settlement with a single entity in American history and will provide billions of dollars in relief to struggling homeowners.

Although the portion of the settlement slated to come to Indiana is unknown, Dunlap, said the amount will be significant.

“While $17 billion is certainly a big number, the portion that Indiana’s IOLTA program will receive is only a small portion of the overall amount and comes on the heels of over five years of unprecedented low revenues due to the historically low prevailing interest rate environment we have experienced,” Dunlap said. “We are extremely grateful for the increased ability we will have to help struggling Hoosiers with these settlement funds, but we have to be patient to see how all the details work out.”

 
 

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
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