ILNews

Lenders meet with borrowers at event

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

Following a statewide event Sept. 1 to help to homeowners who were concerned they might be facing foreclosures, the Indiana Foreclosure Prevention Network hosted another event Sept. 16 in Indianapolis.

The Sept. 1 IFPN event took place at National Guard armories in Indianapolis, Hammond, South Bend, Fort Wayne, Columbus, Evansville, Terre Haute, and Richmond. Information packets were compiled by foreclosure prevention counselors, who followed up with about 300 families around the state to collect missing information. Completed packets were then given to lenders Sept. 16.

Whether or not borrowers attended the Sept. 1 event, they could still attend the Sept. 16 event to meet with foreclosure-prevention counselors, attorneys, and lenders.

Stephanie Reeve, Indiana Foreclosure Prevention Network manager at the Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority, said about 700 borrowers and 20 lenders attended the latter event.

There were also 30 foreclosure-prevention counselors on hand to meet with borrowers, and six volunteer attorneys to answer borrowers’ questions.

Reeve said the event was “absolutely” a success.

“We believe that this is one of the largest events of its kind to have taken place in the Midwest and are pleased that so many borrowers were able to take advantage of this opportunity,” she said.

She also applauded “the effort of the legal community in assisting Hoosiers at risk of foreclosure in navigating the process to help them realize all of the available options in lieu of foreclosure.”

Rehearing "Events benefit Indiana homeowners" IL Sept. 15-28, 2010

ADVERTISEMENT

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT