ILNews

Mortgage CLE numbers announced Monday

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Representatives from the Indiana Supreme Court will be in Evansville Monday to release the number of judges, attorneys, and mediators who were trained this summer and fall to represent borrowers and handle settlement conferences.

Since June, 34 sessions of the "Back Home in Indiana - Guiding Homeowners Through Foreclosure" CLE have taken place around the state. The trainings were originally scheduled to wrap up in Vanderburgh County Oct. 19, but an additional session has been added at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law - Bloomington for Oct. 23. Registrations for the attorney and mediator CLEs are available through the end of today by clicking here.

As noted in the Sept. 16-29, 2009, edition of Indiana Lawyer in the story "Attorneys step up to participate," 946 attorneys, judges, and mediators had taken the trainings - well above the goal of 700 participants.

At that time, it was not yet known how many of those would be eligible or offer to take on a pro bono case or mediate a settlement conference. That number will likely be available at the annual conference of pro bono district plan administrators, which coincides with the Indiana State Bar Association's annual meeting in November.

At the upcoming press conference, Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Melissa May and Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard will answer questions about the program and will address how the judiciary will continue its efforts to assist those in danger of losing their homes to foreclosures.

The CLE sessions are part of the ongoing efforts of the Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority and the Indiana Foreclosure Prevention Network, led by Lt. Gov. Becky Skillman. Those efforts include a hotline and Web site, www.877GetHope.org.

At a fundraiser for the Community Development Law Center Friday morning, Skillman spoke about the state's foreclosure prevention efforts and said more than 50,000 families have sought help through the Web site and hotline since those efforts started in late 2007.

The CLE sessions were supported by the Indiana Pro Bono Commission, The Indiana Commission on Continuing Legal Education, the Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, bar associations, law firms across the state, the Indiana Attorney General's Office, and the Indiana Supreme Court.

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's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT