S. Florida judges brace for a possible fallout of the foreclosure mediation program

Kimberly Miller, Palm Beach Post

Palm Beach County Chief Judge Peter Blanc said weeding out borrowers who have abandoned their homes and enforcing a “good faith” requirement on lenders may improve a foundering statewide foreclosure mediation program.

Last week, a judicial committee recommended the mandatory program be eliminated, suggesting instead that each of the 20 circuit courts be allowed to opt-in to a newly created uniform plan.

While Florida’s Supreme Court justices mull the advice to end their once-heralded 2009 program, chief judges statewide find the ball may soon be in their court as to how to handle foreclosure mediation in the face of bank resistance and weak homeowner participation.

“I agree the process can be approved, as can just about any process,” said Blanc, whose 15th Circuit Court has a backlog of about 23,700 foreclosure cases in Palm Beach County. “It also seems to me that we should spend some time trying to address some of the factors mentioned that can have a negative impact on the mediation success rate.”

The report noted several reasons mandatory mediation has not lived up to expectations, including lenders’ failure to send representatives with full authority to negotiate a settlement and a refusal to consider more than a narrow range of settlement options.

Another concern is that borrowers under siege by companies offering foreclosure prevention assistance were uncertain of the legitimacy of the court-ordered program and didn’t respond to invitations to participate.

Just 14 percent of all eligible borrowers participated in mediation.

Banks pay up to $400 per case for mediation managers to locate borrowers and have them participate in financial counseling – a requirement under the program. Another $350 is paid by lenders to complete mediation.

Read more here

Share

All States Need To Follow Nevada’s Lead

State Supreme Court orders banks be sanctioned for not following foreclosure mediation

Cy Ryan, Las Vegas Sun

While the constitutionality of the state’s foreclosure mediation law is being challenged, the Nevada Supreme Court has ruled that penalties should be imposed on two lending companies that failed to follow those rules.

The court said Washoe District Judge Patrick Flanagan should determine the appropriate sanctions against Wells Fargo Bank and First American Loanstar-MERS for their conduct in two separate cases.

In 2009, the Legislature, responding to a wave of foreclosures, enacted a law setting up a system for lenders and homeowners to meet to see if some compromise might be worked out to avoid a foreclosure.

From September 2009 until June 30, 2011 there were 12,556 mediation meetings.

But in another case before the Supreme Court, Wells Fargo is challenging the validity of the foreclosure mediation law, saying it is taking real property without just compensation.

In the two cases decided Wednesday, the court ruled that in both instances the lending companies failed to bring to the mediation sessions certified copies of the mortgage note and appraisals of the property as required by law.

The court overturned both decisions of Flanagan, who issued foreclosure certificates after the unsuccessful mediations.

Patrick and Orlene Malloy had sued Wells Fargo after the foreclosure certificate was issued. Angela Heredia=Bonnet filed a legal action against First American and MERS.

In the pending case before the Supreme Court, Flanagan ruled in favor of Duke and Tina Renslow in their suit against Wells Fargo.

The Renslows purchased a home in Washoe County and took out a loan with Wells Fargo for $184,000 with monthly payments at $1,708. When the economic downturn came, the Renslows were unable to meet the payment.

They were enrolled in a trial program cutting the payments to $1,127 a month. But Federal Loan Home Bank had purchased the loan and refused to extend it. Mediation ensued and the mediator recommended against foreclosure.

Read more here

Share

Florida Bankers Cry, “Kill the Beast! Kill Beast!” When It Comes To Foreclosure Mediation

Kimberly Miller, Palm Beach Post

The Florida Supreme Court should end its landmark mandatory foreclosure mediation program, a judicial committee concluded Friday.

Despite acknowledging the state’s foreclosure crisis is ongoing, the counsel of five judges and a court administrator said obstacles including homeowner mistrust of the mediation program and lender resistance marred its success.

Instead of requiring mediation in all residential foreclosure cases, as was ordered by the Supreme Court in December 2009, the committee recommended each of the state’s 20 circuit courts be allowed to join in to a newly created, uniform program or make mediation decisions on a case-by-case basis.

The report has been forwarded to the Supreme Court justices, but there is no timeline for when they will make a decision on its recommendations.

It was hoped mandatory mediation would serve two purposes: give borrowers a chance to meet one-on-one with their lenders to negotiate a foreclosure alternative and relieve the courts of a massive backlog of cases.

Although the committee noted that the program “has not had time to mature,” the success rates have been minimal.

Statewide, 3.6 percent of all cases referred to mediation in a yearlong period beginning in March 2010 ended in a written agreement between the lender and homeowner. In Palm Beach County, which began its program in July 2010, 1.6 percent of the 4,632 referrals ended in a written agreement. Another roadblock was trouble contacting borrowers. Of 78,076 cases referred to mediation statewide, borrowers were reached in just 42 percent of the cases.

Proponents of the program complain that many agreements are reached after a mediation has occurred, a measurement not gathered by the official reporting system.

But mandatory foreclosure mediation has been contentious from the beginning. Defense attorneys say banks sabotage mediation sessions, forcing an impasse so they can foreclose more quickly.

Lenders, who pay the $750 for each mediation, said they’ve already worked with a borrower to find a solution other than foreclosure before mediation and that meeting one-on-one rarely changes the homeowner’s circumstances.

“I think this is a program that was well-intentioned but just didn’t accomplish what they wanted it to accomplish,” said Anthony DiMarco, executive vice president of government affairs for the Florida Bankers Association. “All I can tell you is we don’t want to foreclose. We try to work with the borrower first.”

Read more here

Share

Florida Supreme Court reconsidering foreclosure mediation program

Kimberly Miller, Palm Beach Post

The Florida Supreme Court ordered a review Monday of its landmark foreclosure mediation program which has shown limited success in finding alternatives for struggling homeowners.

The mandatory program for all homesteaded properties was ordered by the court in Dec. 2009 in an effort to reduce judicial caseloads and help borrowers avoid foreclosure with options that can include a loan modification, deed-in-lieu of foreclosure or a short sale.

Statewide, 3.6 percent of all cases referred to mediation in a yearlong period beginning in March 2010 ended in a written agreement between the lender and homeowner. In Palm Beach County, 1.6 percent of the 4,632 referrals made ended in a written agreement.

In Monday’s administrative order, the Supreme Court appointed five judges and one court administrator to evaluate the success of the program and recommend whether it should be continued, changed or eliminated.

Judge Burton Conner, who sits on the 4th District Court of Appeal and served on a statewide foreclosure task force that recommended mediation, was appointed to the committee.

Conner said last week that the program has experienced growing pains, but that he believes banks will increasingly see the benefit of going to mediation.

“There has been institutional resistance because it is such a new tool,” Conner said. “With anything new it takes a while to figure out how it works and how you can benefit.”

Read more here

Share