Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Douglas Brown on September 23, 2011 at 12:17pm

Looks like the lender's attorneys have come upon a plan to keep this program from getting off the ground. The legislature is meeting in special session beginning 11/28 to work on budget cuts.  Maybe Commerce can get an immunity clause added to the FFA legislation.  But probably not.

 

Permalink Reply by Jeff Bean on September 26, 2011 at 12:15pm

Douglas,

Not sure what the intent is of what we're seeing - hopefully we'll be able to have that conversation.

Groundwork is being done by a number of stakeholder organizations (including the ADR Section among several interested WSBA sections) for a revision bill to be introduced this session, notwithstanding it's a short one. It will likely have an immunity provision. Our information is we can get legislative consideration of it this session.

Permalink Reply by Douglas Brown on September 23, 2011 at 12:35pm

On the other hand,  it would seem that RCW 7.75.100 applies to DRCs and their volunteers regardless of whether the lender stipulates in a Mediation Agreement or not.  Would the lenders sign a Mediation Agreement without the stipulation?

Permalink Reply by Steve Olsen on September 23, 2011 at 1:37pm

I agree. However, it appears that RESWA & its member DRC's don't want to rely on that analysis

Permalink Reply by David K. Hiscock on September 23, 2011 at 6:18pm

It's essential that FFA mediators continue to share this information with each other.

Identifying recalcitrant bank/lawyers will be essential to providing them with uniform (possibly unsatisfying?) results may be the shortest route to a "new", cooperative approach.

 

All respect - David K. Hiscock

Ballard Law Office 206-789-9551

Permalink Reply by David K. Hiscock on June 30, 2015 at 12:16pm

Edit - recalcitrant "parties"; by now it should be obvious this conduct is available to both sides.

Perhaps this can be picked up during the IFM conf call.

Something to be filed under "what gets rewarded gets repeated"

Ask for the anonymized certification transmittal memo, where the borrower threatened to file complaints against not just the mediator, but also staff at the Department, housing counselor, former counsel, bene counsel (and their staff) as well as rep from AG's office.

All respect - David K. Hiscock

Ballard Law Office 206-789-9551

Permalink Reply by Judith Eiler on September 26, 2011 at 2:49pm

I had a mediation on Oct. 7 where the attorneys (yes there were 2 of them) refused to sign the mediation agreement.  I finally got them to sign it by suggesting that they sign but note there objection on the document.  That seemed to make them feel better.

J. Eiler

Permalink Reply by Jeff Bean on September 26, 2011 at 4:12pm

DRC's were interested in mediation agreements in FFA mediations because they feel compelled by Chapter 7.07 RCW to have one.

I think it's worthwhile for any of the private-practice mediators to be really clear what you're wanting a mediation agreement for. "Because I've always done mediation agreements" probably won't cut it.

You've probably got a lot of language about the UMA in your form mediation agreement. But the UMA doesn't apply here. So think about it.

I've not seen need for a mediation agreement myself, though with current events I am revisiting the question of whether I want to ask the parties to provide me with immunity or limit my testimonial exposure more.