ILNews

Indiana to be included in national robo-signing settlement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller announced Thursday that Indiana would be one of 49 states benefitting from the federal government's settlement with five major mortgage lending banks and servicing institutions.

The state’s share of the settlement with Ally, Bank of America, Citi, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo will be about $145 million. The settlement agreement stems from the banks' foreclosure abuses and fraud as well as unacceptable nationwide mortgage servicing practices.

Zoeller said the settlement will result in reduced loan balances to benefit homeowners who are behind on their payments and who are "underwater" or owe more than their homes are worth.

Indiana's borrowers will receive an estimated $30 million in benefits from loan term modifications and other direct relief. As many as 13,000 Indiana borrowers who lost their home to foreclosure from Jan. 1, 2008, through Dec. 31, 2011, and suffered servicing abuse could qualify for about $26.3 million in cash payments. The AG’s office will receive a direct payment of about $45 million to help fund consumer protection, state foreclosure prevention efforts and related programs. The Department of Financial Institutions will receive an estimated $1 million.

The value of refinanced loans to Indiana's underwater borrowers would be an estimated $43 million.

"This national settlement offers immediate help to many people in Indiana and also allows an opportunity for the national housing market to recover from the crisis of 2008, hopefully sooner rather than later," Zoeller said.

The final agreement, through a consent judgment, will be filed in United States District Court in Washington, D.C., and will have the authority of a court order.

Because of the complexity of the mortgage market and this agreement, which will span a three-year period, in some cases participating mortgage servicers will contact borrowers directly regarding loan modification options. However, borrowers are advised to contact their mortgage servicers to obtain more information about specific loan modification programs and whether they qualify under terms of this settlement.
 

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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT