by admin on December 31, 2008
Yesterday, the New York Times ran a front-page article by John Leland, titled “In Housing Fall, Breaking Up is Harder to Do.” The article described how divorcing couples were now faced with an additional challenge: how to split up assets that have declined greatly in value, and may even be very hard to value in an uncertain market.
One couple’s divorce process is incomplete after nearly two years “with legal and other fees of several hundred thousand dollars. “Both spouses are living in rental properties as there attorneys argue over the value of their remaining assets: “Their wealth is ticking away at $350 an hour, times two.” The husband is quoted as saying: “‘It’s got to end, because at some point there’s nothing left to argue about.’”
Their plight is hardly unique, and not limited to divorces — or even to the destruction of something valued in dollars and cents. But the summary of their situation says a lot in just a few words: the process of their fight itself will eventually destroy any assets they have left. Almost any agreement they could reach through mediation a mediation process would be better for both of them than staying the course.
by admin on December 31, 2008
This is the third and final time I will write about an article in the December 8, 2008 Hartford Business Journal titled “Mediation Helps 360 Postpone Foreclosure.” Greg Bordonaro described the success of Connecticut’s Foreclosure Mediation Program, including comments from various participants. One participant, an attorney for the Connecticut Fair Housing Authority, noted that those who are involved with the program would like to see more homeowners who could benefit from it take advantage of it. Less than 30% of eligible homeowners are using the mediation program.
From a mediator’s perspective, this type of statistic seems both unfortunate and unsurprising. Many businesses, not-for-profits, public sector entities, individuals, and families who could benefit from some form of mediation don’t use the process. More than likely, they simply aren’t aware that the mediation process can be so helpful, in so many contexts. Increasing awareness of availability of mediation and of its advantages is a challenge for mediators and others in the alternative dispute resolution profession.
by admin on December 29, 2008
Last time, I wrote about an article in the December 8, 2008 Hartford Business Journal titled “Mediation Helps 360 Postpone Foreclosure.” Greg Bordonaro described the success of Connecticut’s Foreclosure Mediation Program, including comments from various participants. I talked about how a “win” for a homeowner could mean more than stopping foreclosure completely, because even a negotiated delay in the process is a partial win that will help the homeowner.
Another point made by a participant, an attorney representing homeowners, was that requiring lenders to participate in the program can open up lines of communication. It is important to remember that requiring a party to participate in a mediation process is not the same as forcing a resolution on a party. Parties are required to attempt to reach a mediated resolution in a variety of settings, ranging from legislatively mandated programs to individual judges who order parties to attempt mediation in the context of a particular case. Sometimes a party who will find that, despite his expectations before attempting to reach a voluntary resolution of a dispute, that a mediated settlement is possible that will serve his interests better than allowing the dispute to continue. Then, he will find it beneficial to agree to the mediated result, though not forced to do so.
by admin on December 11, 2008
The operation of Connecticut’s Foreclosure Mediation Program through its first five months illustrates a couple of themes that are common to most mediation processes. In an article in the December 8, 2008 Hartford Business Journal titled “Mediation Helps 360 Postpone Foreclosure”, Greg Bordonaro described the program, with comments from various viewpoints. One positive note is that over 360 homeowners reached a settlement that allowed them to keep their homes, while another 116 homeowners left their homes but reached an agreement with a lender to pay off the remaining balance of their mortgage.
Some might feel that only those who were able to keep their homes achieved a “win” here. But those who reached agreement to pay off their mortgage came out of the mediation process in a better position than when they began. Undoubtedly they saw an advantage to that result (less damage to their credit records would be one likely benefit) or they would not have agreed to it. If it had been possible, and in the best interests of both the lender and the homeowner in those cases to reach a settlement that allowed them to stay, a mediator would have helped them reach that resolution. Instead, the homeowners — and lenders — reached a mediated solution that might be described as half a loaf, which is definitely better than none.