The Great Recession, which began with the economic downturn in late 2007, has spawned two waves of foreclosures. These waves have demonstrated the contrasting interests of parties to a foreclosure: lenders are primarily concerned with the overall outcome of all security interests, while homeowners are inextricably tied to the outcome of their one particular case. The fundamental differences between these interests make the resolutions of foreclosures difficult. This Article argues that courts should use their equitable powers when deciding foreclosure matters to promote all parties’ interests, minimize the risk of unnecessary foreclosures, and reach alternative resolutions more often. The Authors note that foreclosure can often be excessively harsh, especially when lenders are foreclosing against their own interests or when the foreclosure harms third parties. To prevent harsh foreclosures, this Article suggests that modern courts follow history’s examples of using equitable powers to help keep borrowers in their homes. This Article proposes that courts should use their equitable powers both before and during a foreclosure suit to resolve cases without a court-issued ruling. Before the suit, courts may require additional certifications by the plaintiff, specific loss-mitigation efforts, or an in-person meeting between the lender and homeowner. During foreclosure suits, courts may require a person with settlement authority to be available to the defendant, require parties to attend mediation, or require compliance with HAMP before the court issues a judgment. Courts could also combine several of these solutions. Should all these procedures fail, courts should then weigh the equities of an individual case to determine the outcome. The Authors suggest that by mitigating the harshness of securing a debt with someone’s home, these equitable procedures will bring needed fairness and efficiency to the current foreclosure crisis.