Milwaukee Foreclosure Mediation Program: Theory to Practice

Andrea Schneider and Natalie Fleury have a new paper on SSRN that describes the Milwaukee Foreclosure Mediation Program and analyzes the MFMP’s design by reference to dispute resolution theory.  The MFMP responded to the ongoing foreclosure crisis in Milwaukee, emerging from an initiative involving Marquette Law School and several government agencies, elected leaders, and community organizations.  The MFMP creates voluntary mediation opportunities for homeowners and lenders in the hope of renegotiating payment terms such that both sides will benefit.  So far, the results seem impressive, with home-retention agreements reached in more than forty percent of mediations and high levels of satisfaction reported by program participants.

Andrea and Natalie conclude as follows:

The opportunity to put years of writing and work in the field to use to help out the city, state, and court system was an honor and unique opportunity for the law school. Both professors and students witnessed law school teachings put to work and had a rewarding impact in their own backyard.  It also has given us, as designers, far greater insight into the local government and local community than we would have had without this collaboration. Most importantly, mediation has worked in exactly the way that we theorized. The communication between the parties is vastly improved through the program than it would be otherwise. Parties have control over the outcomes, not perfectly, but again, much more so than they would have in the alternatives. And the program provides for efficient solutions as the city continues to struggle with foreclosures. Moving forward, we have to map student availability and interest with the needs and opportunities presented by the program. But we have witnessed the putting of theory into practice in a wonderful way while recognizing that we would have all preferred that this particular need not exist.

Their paper, entitled “There’s No Place Like Home: Applying Dispute System Design Theory to Create a Foreclosure Mediation System,” will appear in the Nevada Law Journal.

Continue ReadingMilwaukee Foreclosure Mediation Program: Theory to Practice

Ozanne v. Fitzgerald: Haste Makes Waste

On June 23, I participated in a discussion concerning the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in Ozanne v. Fitzgerald, 2011 WI 43, on the Wisconsin Eye public affairs show “Legally Speaking.”  Rick Esenberg and I continued our ongoing difference of opinion regarding this litigation, which seems to generate an endless supply of novel and contentious legal questions.  You can view the program at this link.

My criticisms of the unusual procedural posture of the case, and of the lack of wisdom exhibited by the four member majority’s rush to resolution, are fully stated in the video.

For the remainder of this post, I would like to expand on my criticism of the majority’s legal conclusion that the legislature lacks the power under the State Constitution to submit itself to the jurisdiction of the courts under the Open Meetings Law.

Continue ReadingOzanne v. Fitzgerald: Haste Makes Waste

Unoriginal Thoughts on Appellate Procedure

Earlier this week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued its decision in State ex rel. Ozanne v. Fitzgerald and State ex rel. Huebsch v. Circuit Court for Dane County.  The decision has rightly generated a good bit of commentary about open government, separation of powers, etc.  My goal here is to clarify a very limited but important point of Wisconsin appellate procedure.

The issues in the decision came to the court in two ways: an appeal from a temporary order that had been certified by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals and a petition for a supervisory writ filed by Secretary Huebsch.  The two cases were combined for briefing and oral argument.  The majority’s order denied the certification, granted the petition for a supervisory writ, and then decided the issues contained in the petition for the writ.

In the court’s order, the majority refers to the writ request as a “petition for supervisory/original jurisdiction” (¶ 2) and a “petition for original action” (¶7).  In his concurrence, Justice Prosser refers to the writ request as an “original action” which “satisfies several of the court’s criteria for an original action publici juris” (¶19).

Chief Justice Abrahamson, in her writing, will have none of this (¶¶97-101).  She notes that the majority order “mistakenly asserts” that a “’petition for supervisory/original jurisdiction” was filed by Huebsch “pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ (Rules) 809.70 and 809.71,” when in fact the Huebsch petition only references 809.71. 

Continue ReadingUnoriginal Thoughts on Appellate Procedure