Resources / Study / Innovation for Court ADR

Just Court ADR

The blog of Resolution Systems Institute

Posts Tagged ‘confidentiality’

Part 3 of 3: Foreclosure Mediation Best Practices

Just Court ADR, March 14th, 2012


Ensure Mediators are Well-Trained

Some programs, fearing they will not be able to attract people to mediate, lower the requirements for training mediators. Instead of the normal 40 hour mediation training, they may require only 12 hours of training with an additional training in foreclosure law, or only require that the mediator be an attorney. This lack of training jeopardizes the mediation process itself, as people may not have the tools after 12 hours of training to manage such a complicated discussion. Connecticut’s program boasts a high settlement rate, in part because (more…)

Groundbreaking Court Decision Requires Courts to Comply with Mediators

Just Court ADR, July 15th, 2011

Housing advocates are lauding the Nevada Supreme Court’s trio of decisions, released Thursday, about Nevada’s foreclosure mediation program. However, under the surface of Pasillas, Redmon, and Leyva lurks factors that could cause upheaval (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