Resources / Study / Innovation for Court ADR

Just Court ADR

The blog of Resolution Systems Institute

Archive for the ‘Policy-making’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

What Might We Learn from the Post-Mediation Shooting in Phoenix?

Susan M. Yates, February 4th, 2013

Neutrals across the country must have experienced a mutual shudder as we read about a party leaving a Phoenix mediation, lying in wait for the other party and his lawyer to leave, and then shooting them, along with a bystander.

My initial response was from that core, human place. I mourn the loss of life and the injuries. I imagine the fear of those in the immediate area. I wonder if I know, or anyone I know knows, the mediator or any of the participants. My heart goes out to the mediator, Ira Schwartz.

Then I think about how this will play out amid the current debate about the role of guns in our society.

But then I imagine the critical questions this raises for those of us in the ADR field.

  • As neutrals, what are our responsibilities?
  • For those of us involved with court ADR programs, what are our special responsibilities? (more…)

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Policy-making, Program Management, Training, Skills & Techniques, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Texas Supreme Court By-Passes ADR in Rules for Expedited Civil Litigation

Jennifer Shack, November 26th, 2012

I have to admit that when there’s a new statutory mandate for courts to adopt a procedure that expedites resolution at low cost, I immediately think of it as a call for new ADR programs. I’m of course a bit biased, but I see ADR as a great way for courts to move cases more quickly and inexpensively through the judicial system. The Texas Supreme Court, though, saw it very differently and limited, rather than expanded, the use of ADR. (more…)

Tags: , ,
Posted in Policy-making | 1 Comment »

Counting Up the Costs and Benefits to Lenders of Foreclosure Mediation

Jennifer Shack, November 19th, 2012

Is foreclosure mediation a positive or a negative for lenders? An open letter from Connecticut’s Congressional delegation to the Federal Housing Finance Authority (FHFA) provides sound evidence that it’s a financial positive for lenders to participate in a well-functioning mediation program. FHFA, which regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac , is proposing to increase guarantee fees for mortgages in Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York, stating that laws and procedures enacted in those states have extended the foreclosure process and increased the costs of foreclosure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (more…)

Tags: , ,
Posted in Policy-making | 3 Comments »

Foreclosure Mediation Upheld against Constitutional Challenge

Just Court ADR, August 23rd, 2012

For the second time in as many years, a foreclosure mediation program has faced a constitutional challenge. This time, the 153,000-person city of Springfield, Massachusetts, will be allowed to move forward with a foreclosure mediation program for residents.

The first was a constitutional challenge from Wells Fargo against the Nevada Supreme Court Foreclosure Mediation Program. Wells Fargo claims the mediation program itself violates the due process clause. More specifically, Wells Fargo claims a provision that allows sanctions for non-compliance, violated the U.S. constitution. Nevada’s mediation program allows judges to issue sanctions if the lender does not participate in good faith. Sanctions may include an ordered write-down of the mortgage. Wells Fargo says this violates the contracts clause and the takings clause by interfering with a contract provision and appropriating private real and personal property for public use without compensation. The court (more…)

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Court Opinions, Policy-making, Program Management, Research | 4 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »
Verified by ExactMetrics