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.”



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  2. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  3. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  4. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  5. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.