You're so concerned about the dented front fender and who's going to pay to fix it you totally miss the fact the entire ass-end of the vehicle is torn off. You'd better check your own mortgage doc's and be damned sure you can get a cleared title when you supposedly satisfy your note obligation. That's the heart of the issue for some. Who actually has "standing" to issue a statement of satisfaction?
Yes, it was a deliberate attempt to conceal the fact mortgages pooled in the MBS didn't meet underwriters' standards so the toxic paper was "conveniently" omitted. In order that the deceit not become "obvious", prime mortgage security instruments were also omitted - it was cast as a "new thing" and investors were assured their purchases were secured. Those who were provided self-destruct mortgages are credited for revealing the bigger picture - banks' fraud, deceit, lying, cheating - all for a profit.
Banksters were aware how MBS's and REMIC's work and knew the limitations - hell, BofA doesn't bribe, er, pay its gang of lawyers to sit on their asses and miss blunders with the potential caustic effects of this magnitude.
Even if you are right, that does not translate to a question of ownership at the end of the day. We are talking about how to fix that as we speak and granting the foreclosed homeowner rights to squal indefinately will have a considerable negative impact on any quote unquote recovery in the housing market. If you suggest this was deliberate in order to hide subprime crap then I would address that as a separate investment related issue and not pull the title issue into question. I don’t see much to back up your assertion so if you have any references I would appreciate it.