Last year, Oregon created a dispute resolution program for non-judicial foreclosure cases. The program didn’t work as well as hoped. The program’s start coincided with an appeals court decision that pushed foreclosures into the judicial system. That, along with some issues with the legislation enacting the foreclosure dispute resolution program and lender reluctance to participate, led to very few cases being mediated. A lot of work has been done since then to find ways to encourage use of dispute resolution. The effort that appears to have gained the most traction is to expand the foreclosure dispute resolution program to include cases going through the judicial process. (more…)
Archive for the ‘Policy-making’ Category
Oregon Senate Passes Bill to Expand Foreclosure Dispute Resolution
Jennifer Shack, April 24th, 2013Mediation Saves Mediation in Massachusetts
Jennifer Shack, March 14th, 2013In an appellate mediation over the fate of a mediation program, two sides have agreed to preserve mediation. Back in 2011, Springfield, MA, passed two ordinances to deal with the foreclosure problem in the city. The first instituted a mediation program. The second required lenders to post a $10,000 bond for any foreclosures filed for vacant properties. Lenders filed suit in U.S. District Court, where the judge affirmed Springfield’s right to mandate both the bond and mediation. You can read about the rationale for both the suit and the court’s decision here. The lenders appealed and the two sides voluntarily entered mediation. (more…)
A Court Clash on Confidentiality and Mediation Policy
Just Court ADR, February 27th, 2013The Indiana Supreme Court recently declared that the state’s judicial policy supports “robust confidentiality” in mediation. In doing so, the court vacated a Court of Appeals ruling that would have expanded the circumstances in which confidentiality could be broken to obtain evidence. The two rulings reflect a strong contrast in interpretations of ADR rules and judicial policy toward mediation. (more…)
What Does the Loss of Court ADR Mean for Access to Justice?
Jennifer Shack, February 11th, 2013In the past few years, we’ve seen court ADR programs being cut around the country as courts and legislatures balance their dwindling budgets. The latest rumors of closure come from California where, some blogs have reported, mediation programs will be cut across the board in Los Angeles County in June. While the stories out of California appear to be a little more complicated than first reported, the closures throughout the country, combined with cuts to other court services (as they would be in Los Angeles County), bring up two causes of concern: privatization of justice and access to justice. (more…)
