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.
Have you read this:
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=168218
Everything in the chain of assignments faltered at the banks’ hands. The real mess only surfaced when a percentage of resets went into default and the banks’ “Oh-OH!” moment happened.
It was then, “Foreclose on ANYTHING that looks suspicious!” to back up the worthless investments sold to defrauded investors.
And yes, the title issue cannot be resolved unless the Note issue is also.
You’re squawking over the “squatters” and assuredly they don’t deserve a “free house”. But at the end of the day, which is more costly? to walk away from a squatter or sink billions for removals and even more trillions in penalties and put-backs to fix the REMICS? At some point, diminishing returns demand cutting losses and getting out. For some, it’ll be the homeowner. For others, the banks.