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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT