summary of combi ned lmm su rvey responses introdu …€¦ · introdu the u.s. b a survey o the...
TRANSCRIPT
INTRODU
The U.S. Ba survey o The surveinvitationposting a NUMBER A total of they had take the sreceived tand 24 (8 Because sor that coaddition, vary. PARTICIPAWAS OF A Of those wsurvey fro11 individ Survey ta“other” clDebtor's aTrustee; M
UCTION
Bankruptcy Coon mortgage
ey was open fs to participalink to the su
OF PARTICIP
583 started tneither particsurvey. Of thothe survey fro.2%) who ind
some the survourt’s programresponses we
ANTS WHO RATTORNEY FO
who indicatedom, chapter pdual (20); and
kers who partlarified their rattorney; parMediator in a
SUMMAR
ourts for the mitigation me
or responses ate in the survurvey on their
PANTS; 293 CO
the survey, wcipated in or wose not disquom the MDFLicated they re
vey questionsm and anotheere optional f
RESPONDED –OR DEBTOR (6
d they had paparticipation wd Chapter 12(
ticipate in theroles as followalegal assistinll districts. De
RY OF COMBI
Southern, Miediation prog
from Septemvey to all regir court websit
OMPLETED T
with 94 automwere familiarualified, 293 cL; 117 (39.9%)eceived the s
s only applieder program, nfor some que
– MOST CASE66%)
articipated in was as followone).
e program claws: Co‐counsng debtor's atebtor attorne
1
NED LMM SU
iddle and Norgrams offered
mber 16 throustered CM/ECtes.
THE SURVEY (
atically disqur at all with ancompleted the) who indicateurvey from th
d to those expot all survey tstions. As a r
ES WERE CHA
one or morews: Chapter 1
assified their el in ch.13 fottorney; ch. 1ey only in the
URVEY RESPO
rthern Districd in their resp
ugh DecembeCF users in th
(152 MDFL, 1
ualifying themny mediatione survey: 152ed they receihe NDFL.
perienced wittakers receivresult, total fo
APTER 13 AND
mediations i3 (177) ; Cha
roles as follor modificatio11 trustee attmiddle distri
ONSES
cts of Florida jpective courts
er 2, 2013. Eaheir courts, in
17 SDFL, and
mselves becaun programs an2 (51.9%) whived the surve
th that specifed the same or responses
D ROLE OF M
in the court tpter 7 individ
ws: (note: thn purposes; ctorney for ch.ct
jointly condus.
ach court sen addition to
d 24 NDFL)
use they indicnd did not wiso indicated they from the S
ic court’s proquestions. Inreported her
OST RESPON
hey received dual (37); Cha
hose indicatincovered for 7 trustee;
cted
t
cated sh to hey SDFL
ogram re will
NDING
the apter
ng
The chartagreemen
The chart
below showsnts reached.
below reflec
s survey resp
ts responses
onses to the
regarding wh
2
question aski
hen agreemen
ing in what p
nts were reac
ercentage of
ched during t
cases were
the program:
Mediators
Below is a
SDFL
s: The followi
a breakdown
ing chart refle
of responses
ects response
to the above
3
es from all co
e mediator qu
urts together
uestion 14 by
r:
y each court:
MDFL
NDFL
4
When sho
Portals
ould a mediattor be appoinnted?
5
Software:
Desired Fe
:
eatures of a PProgram (both experience
6
d and inexpeerienced userss responses)
Features I
Who shou
Important to
uld pay for co
success of pr
osts of the pro
rogram (respo
ogram?
7
onses from exxperienced and non‐experrienced)
Pro se pro
Program f
ovisions
features that would discouurage particip
8
pation
How muc
Should a u
SDFL resp
h time should
uniform prog
ponses to “sho
d mediation t
ram be adopt
ould a uniform
take?
ted? (Combin
m program be
9
ned response
e adopted?”
es from the 3 courts)
MDFL res
NDFL resp
ponses to “sh
ponses to “sh
hould a unifor
ould a unifor
rm program b
rm program b
10
be adopted?”
be adopted?”
”