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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT