|  The three stand-alone Supreme Court rules reflect the court's 
			concern over well-publicized deceptive practices at the national and 
			local level and the significant impact the continuing flow of 
			residential mortgage foreclosures is having on Illinois citizens and 
			communities. The rules are a direct outgrowth of public hearings 
			and 21 months of work by the Special Supreme Court Committee on 
			Mortgage Foreclosures, whose formation was recommended by Justice 
			Mary Jane Theis. The 14-member committee consisted of people who have been on the 
			front lines in dealing with the housing and foreclosure crises, 
			including judges; bankers and their lawyers; a public interest 
			attorney; a law professor; and the head of the Consumer Protection 
			Division of the Illinois attorney general's office. "These new rules will promote fairness in home foreclosure 
			proceedings, curb abuses in the system, provide lenders finality 
			when foreclosure is necessary and ensure homeowners who have been 
			thrown out of work during the years of a troubled economy are aware 
			of their rights and where to turn for help," said Chief Justice 
			Thomas L. Kilbride, an early proponent of foreclosure mediation 
			programs in Illinois. "The special committee, formed at the 
			recommendation of Justice Theis, has done its work well, with 
			perseverance and with attention to the kind of detail that we 
			believe will get positive results. 
			 "I and my colleagues on the Supreme Court thank them as well 
			everyone who participated in the process through written suggestions 
			or testimony at the public hearings. All their efforts, we hope, 
			will not only promote efficiency, finality and justice; but provide 
			a touch of humanity in what is a painful process for homeowners and 
			an unwelcome one for lenders." Theis acknowledged the hard work of the committee, not only for 
			its labors but for engaging in extensive compromise to draft 
			significant proposals that bridge the inherent self-interests on 
			both sides, the lender and the borrower. "The special committee worked hard and reached a consensus," 
			Theis said. "Some of the provisions in these rules are controversial 
			in their specific worlds, whether it be finance and lending or in 
			public interest and consumer law. No side got everything it wanted. "I applaud the special committee, and all those who had input, 
			for drafting provisions that will lend some stability and certitude 
			to what is a financially and emotionally draining process." Theis explained that the new rules establish a uniform protocol 
			around the state that will require lenders to provide homeowners 
			with needed information so that they understand the process and 
			consequences of foreclosure; require lenders to seek modification of 
			loans for eligible homeowners before they complete foreclosure; 
			require improved legal notice to homeowners throughout the process 
			and before the actual sale of a foreclosed home; and require circuit 
			courts in Illinois that have a mediation program to provide 
			resources for HUD-certified consultation, free legal help and 
			language interpretive services to those eligible and in need of 
			them. "There can be no 'win-win' in a process that is as painful to 
			homeowners as foreclosure," Theis said. "But the process should be 
			fair. These rules remedy or mitigate questionable practices such as 
			robo-signing; speed up the process to hopefully shorten the blight 
			on communities through boarded-up homes, and provide a certainty 
			that will enable foreclosed homeowners to examine loan modification 
			options or proceed on a new path." 
			 The changes in Illinois foreclosure practice are embodied in new 
			Supreme Court Rule 99.1, dealing with requirements for mortgage 
			foreclosure mediation programs in the circuit courts and counties; 
			new Supreme Court Rule 113, which sets out required practice, 
			procedure and notice obligations by the lender as plaintiff; and new 
			Supreme Court Rule 114, which requires a lender to attest that it 
			has complied with the requirements of any loss mitigation program 
			that applies to the specific home loan. Without the affidavit, a 
			judge many deny entry of a foreclosure judgment. The rules are effective March 1. Counties and circuits that 
			already have foreclosure mediation programs have 90 additional days 
			until June 1 to amend their local rules to comply with the Rule 99.1 
			requirements, including the identification of resources for 
			counseling, free legal aid and interpretive language services. "I'm very proud of the committee's work," said Judge Lewis M. 
			Nixon, chair of the committee, who is supervising judge of the 
			Mortgage Foreclosure Section of the Cook County Circuit Court. "We 
			had input from private citizens, people who were going through 
			foreclosures themselves, from banks and attorneys. The rules are 
			balanced. They contain recommendations that are helpful to both 
			sides." Daniel P. Lindsey, a public interest attorney at LAF (formerly 
			Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago), was co-chair 
			of a subcommittee that recommended the new rules requiring the 
			loss-mitigation affidavit (Rule 114) and the requirements for 
			mortgage foreclosure mediation programs (Rule 99.1). 
			
			 
			[to top of second column] | 
 
			 "I hope what the loss mitigation and mediation proposals do is 
			give homeowners a chance whenever possible to work something out 
			with their lender, whether a loan modification or something else, 
			instead of going through the entirety of the foreclosure process," 
			Lindsey said. "A lot of the work I do is with homeowners we think 
			should get a loan modification who are getting the runaround. The 
			lender is telling them one thing on the phone -- 'Don't worry, we'll 
			work with you' -- and then their lawyers are barreling ahead with 
			the foreclosure in court. "I hope these rules can slow things down, when appropriate, to 
			help the homeowner and lender to get a real chance to do a loan 
			modification and avoid foreclosure. The loss-mitigation affidavit is 
			an enforcement tool to help reach that goal. It gives judges a 
			concrete tool to make sure lenders are offering loss mitigation 
			before seeking a foreclosure judgment." Counties that have mediation programs and have until June 1 to 
			adapt their local rules to Supreme Court Rule 99.1 are Cook, Will, 
			Peoria, Madison and Bond, McLean, and Kane. Kankakee and St. Clair 
			counties are in the process of establishing mediation programs. Supreme Court Rule 113 establishes new rules of practice and 
			procedure that improve legal notice to a homeowner and is directly 
			aimed at eliminating the questionable practice of robo-signings by 
			requiring submission by the lender's representative of a prove-up 
			affidavit. "The new rules improve the quality of notice to homeowners 
			involved in foreclosure cases," said Appellate Justice Mathias W. 
			Delort, who served as co-chair of the Practice and Procedure 
			subcommittee that drafted Rule 113. "First, if a homeowner loses a 
			foreclosure case by default because of a failure to appear in court, 
			the clerk of the court will be required to send a clear notice to 
			the homeowner explaining what occurred. Currently, there is no 
			consistent practice in giving notice. "Second, foreclosure plaintiffs (lenders) will be required to 
			send a specific notice of the sale date to all homeowners, rather 
			than simply advertising it in a newspaper. And thirdly, to alleviate 
			some of the confusion caused by the frequent transfer of mortgages 
			and lawsuits being brought by entities unknown to the borrowers, 
			every foreclosure lawsuit must now include a copy of the note signed 
			by the mortgagor, including all endorsements evidencing the transfer 
			of ownership of the mortgage." 
			 In addition to Nixon,.Lindsey and Delort, the members of the 
			committee are: 
				
				Judge Robert G. 
				Gibson, of the 18th Judicial Circuit, Du Page County, Wheaton
				John J. Glowinski, 
				senior vice president, First Midwest Bank, Itasca, senior 
				officer responsible for remediation of troubled accounts
				Richard M. Guerard, 
				attorney and partner with Guerard, Kalina & Butkus, Wheaton, a 
				firm concentrating its practice in commercial, banking and real 
				estate law
				Deborah Hagen, 
				chief of the Consumer Protection Division of the Illinois 
				attorney general's office, Springfield, and publisher of 
				"Illinois Consumer Protection Law" for the Illinois Institute of 
				Continuing Legal Education
				Richard L. Heavner, 
				attorney with Heavner, Scott, Beyers & Mihlar, a firm 
				concentrating in providing legal services to mortgage lending 
				institutions, and owner of Central Illinois Title Co., Decatur. 
				He was co-chair with Delort of the Practice and Procedure 
				subcommittee.
				Judge Douglas L. 
				Jarman, of the 4th Judicial Circuit, Montgomery County 
				Courthouse, Hillsboro
				Prof. Robert M. 
				Lawless, University of Illinois College of Law, Champaign, 
				teacher of courses including bailouts, bankruptcy, business 
				bankruptcy and consumer law
				Retired Cook 
				County Circuit Judge Clifford L. Meacham, Chicago. Meachem 
				served with Lindsey as co-chair of the Loss Mitigation and 
				Mediation subcommittee.
				Associate Judge 
				Darryl B. Simko, Cook County Circuit Court, Mortgage Foreclosure 
				Section
				William F. Smith, 
				attorney, general counsel with Home Star Bank, Manteno
				Kevin J. Stine, attorney with Mathis, 
				Marifian & Richter, Belleville, concentrating in banking law and 
				creditor rights 
            ___ 
            Supreme Court Rules 
			99.1, 113 and 114  
[Text from file received from the
Illinois Supreme Court] 
 |