ILNews

Supreme Court posts foreclosure best practices

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has posted best practices regarding mortgage foreclosures filed in Indiana. The Indiana attorney general also filed a petition  Monday with the Supreme Court supporting the best practices and asking for the Supreme Court to require those recommendations in mortgage foreclosure proceedings.

These guidelines were developed by a foreclosure-prevention task force established by the Indiana Supreme Court, which included the attorney general’s office, judges, Supreme Court staff, legal services attorneys, and attorneys for mortgage lenders.

The guidelines are based on observations of the functions and results of settlement conferences that have taken place around the state under a statute that went into effect July 1, 2009, and settlement conferences that have taken place as part of the Mortgage Foreclosure Trial Court Assistance Project.

Among the Supreme Court’s recommendations are standards for lenders who file pleadings against borrowers, best practices regarding settlement conferences, and that notice be given to borrowers if something changes post-judgment.

Best practices for pleadings include explanation as to why the plaintiff should be classified as a “person entitled to enforce” the instrument; that the original instrument should be readily available if the court requests it; that any endorsements or transfers of loan instruments should be readily available if the court requests them; if the original instrument has been lost, counsel should follow the correct procedures; and that the plaintiff should provide contact information for every defendant debtor, including potentially illegal “rescue agencies” that may be linked to the mortgage.

Best practices for settlement conferences include separate notice from the trial court to each defendant debtor; if the plaintiff claims the defendant is not eligible for settlement conference, the plaintiff should present proof of why (including whether the borrower does not live in the residence or that the borrower previously failed to comply with a foreclosure prevention agreement); and if additional documentation is needed at settlement conference, the settlement conference should reconvene to give borrowers a chance to provide any missing information.

The best practices also include possible sanctions for lenders who do not follow trial court directives regarding settlement conferences. This includes a plaintiff’s failure to appear at a settlement conference or asking the defendant to waive his or her right to a settlement conference. Sanctions imposed by judges in Allen and St. Joseph counties have ranged from $150 to $2,500, according to the document.

In addition to the Supreme Court’s recommendations, the petition submitted by Attorney General Greg Zoeller and Abby Kuzma, chief counsel and director of the Consumer Protection Division of the AG’s office, includes additional recommendations, including a requirement that “Plaintiffs shall include a Verified Affidavit describing Defendant’s compliance with federal requirements to engage Plaintiff in loss mitigation efforts and the reason for denial of loss mitigation.”

Zoeller’s petition also requests the Supreme Court to make the best practices requirements rather than recommendations, suggesting that “should” be changed to “shall” in all of the Supreme Court’s recommendations.
 

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

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