Resources / Study / Innovation for Court ADR

Just Court ADR

The blog of Resolution Systems Institute

Posts Tagged ‘agreements’

Connecticut Evaluates Mortgage Foreclosure Mediation Program

Just Court ADR, March 9th, 2015

In October 2014, the Connecticut Judicial Branch released an evaluation of its Mortgage Foreclosure Mediation Program. The Connecticut study evaluates six years of foreclosure mediation program data, dating from the program’s inception in 2008. As RSI prepares the first evaluation of Illinois’ six foreclosure mediation incubation programs, the earliest of which began accepting cases in December 2013, it’s interesting to review Connecticut’s data and how the program has evolved over time.

Given Connecticut’s six year history with foreclosure mediation, the report is able to explore how homeowners who participate in the foreclosure mediation program have fared over time. This information is very valuable, since the long term sustainability of mortgage modifications, such as those offered through HAMP, have often been called into question. (more…)

Is Getting It in Writing a Universal Best Practice?

Susan M. Yates, August 29th, 2013

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently ruled that agreement terms must be written and signed before the parties leave a mediation in order to be enforced. Experienced mediators are familiar with the push-pull at the end of a long mediation of whether to write up an agreement. On one hand, everyone wants to be done with the mediation and go home. On the other hand, writing enough so that the agreement is clear, and then signing that agreement, can forestall major problems down the line. Now, at least in New Jersey, what should be done is clear: if the terms are not written and signed, it will not be considered an enforceable agreement. (more…)

Court-Ordered Mediation Agreement Must Be Written

Susan M. Yates, July 27th, 2010

The Missouri Court of Appeals has issued a decision that is instructive as to what can happen when an agreement reached in a court-ordered mediation is not reduced to writing before everyone leaves the mediation. The decision also highlights the potential tension between an emphasis on good faith participation and confidentiality, although it never discusses good faith.

Missouri’s Supreme Court Rules 17.01(d) and 17.06(c) specifically require that agreements be memorialized. In this situation, one party left the mediation, saying they would return to finalize the agreement, but did not do so for an hour, at which point the other party and the mediator ended the mediation. During the ensuing week, there were follow-up efforts to finalize the agreement, but the party who had left the mediation quibbled with various drafts of the agreement.

The Appellate Court, reversing the trial court, found that the plain language of Supreme Court Rule 17.06 (c), (more…)

Verified by ExactMetrics