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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.