Progress Made, But Work Remains on Foreclosures, NJ Court Committee Says
"The recommendations set forth by this committee will further improve on efforts to resolve housing disputes in a fair and equitable manner that benefits homeowners, lenders and communities throughout New Jersey," said the chairman of the committee, Appellate Division Judge Glenn Grant, the acting administrative director of the courts, in a statement.
September 20, 2018 at 02:34 PM
4 minute read
|
Citing the need for further progress in addressing New Jersey's residential foreclosure crisis, a state Supreme Court committee on Thursday issued a series of recommendations aimed at continuing to reduce the number of homeowners in danger of losing their homes and for streamlining the foreclosure process.
The court's Special Committee on Residential Foreclosures—created by Chief Justice Stuart Rabner in May 2017—issued a list of 17 recommendations, which it said were needed to continue an ongoing crisis.
Some of those proposals include:
- Revising the Fair Foreclosure Act to require filing within six months of the notice of intent to foreclose, or service of a new notice;
- Codifying the procedures for foreclosure sales to ensure that sheriff's sales occur within 120 days, as is currently required by law;
- Revising statutes and rules to make it easier for lenders to seize and sell homes that clearly have been abandoned;
- Amending court rules to reduce the notice requirement for entry of judgment from 30 days to 10 days;
- Expanding the authority of the Superior Court Clerk's Office to improve oversight of backlogged cases.
“The recommendations set forth by this committee will further improve on efforts to resolve housing disputes in a fair and equitable manner that benefits homeowners, lenders and communities throughout New Jersey,” said the chairman of the committee, Appellate Division Judge Glenn Grant, the acting administrative director of the courts, in a statement.
The committee was made up of those involved in handling foreclosure matters: lawyers, legislative leaders, lenders, sheriffs and judiciary personnel.
Some of the recommendations would require action by either the Legislature or the governor's office, while others can be implemented by the judiciary through court rule amendments, the panel noted.
The number of residential foreclosures erupted in the wake of the nationwide financial crisis of 2008.
“The foreclosure explosion necessitated swift and multifaceted action by the executive, legislative and judicial branches,” the committee said in its report.
One of the first steps the judiciary took was to create a mediation program in which lenders and homeowners were encouraged to work together to avoid foreclosures and negotiate new payment plans.
The report noted that in 2006, two years before the mortgage crisis began, the judiciary handled about 25,000 foreclosures.
After the collapse of the market, the number of foreclosures skyrocketed to more than 65,000, the report said.
“After the judiciary created its mediation program and lawmakers took other corrective action, the number of actions were reduced and the backlog was addressed,” the report said.
“Over the past decade, the executive, legislative and judicial branches have worked together to improve the foreclosure process in New Jersey,” the report said.
The committee said that in 2011, there were 144,032 foreclosure claims filed in New Jersey; as of June 2018, that number had decreased to 20,949 residential foreclosure claims.
Additionally, the committee said, the time between the filing of a foreclosure claim to closure dropped from 1,360 days to 148 days.
But, “despite progress, fallout from the foreclosure crisis remains a significant problem in need of continued remediation,” the committee said in its report.
A high rate of unresolved foreclosure actions results in reduced property values, an increased tax burden on local governments, and a decreased quality of life for local residents, especially if homes are sitting abandoned, the report said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOn the Move and After Hours: Brach Eichler; Cooper Levenson; Marshall Dennehey; Archer; Sills Cummis
7 minute readConstruction Worker Hit by Falling Concrete Settles Claims for $2.3M
4 minute readEagle Pharma Founder Sues Company to Recoup Cost of SEC Investigation
2 minute read$113K Sanction Award to Law Firm at Stake: NJ Supreme Court Will Consider 'Unsettled Law' Frivolous Litigation Question
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'Think About Why You Want the Role, Because It Is Not an Easy Job,' Says Aaron Rubin of Morrison Foerster
- 2People in the News—Nov. 22, 2024—Marshall Dennehey, Buchanan Ingersoll
- 3$83M Verdict After $100K Demand Rejected in Henry County
- 4Samsung Flooded With Galaxy Product Patent Lawsuits in Texas Federal Court
- 5How Marsh McLennan's Small But Mighty Legal Innovation Team Builds Solutions That Bring Joy
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250