Horse-puckies.
It would be fraud if some bank created documents to indicate a debt where none was entered into, but despite your sophistry, THERE IS A DEBT HERE.
The couple who bought the house, of their own free will took out a mortgage for the purchase of the house. That is a fact not under dispute. They ceased to make timely payments. That is another fact not under dispute.
The rational response is for the court to appoint a trustee for the lender (at whatever point the "true" lender is sorted out), foreclose, throw the deadbeats out, and sort out who the "legitimate" owner of the note is at leisure. To do otherwise creates a windfall to the occupiers of the house.
But to throw the occupiers out prior to proving ownership is a presumption of legal fact.
The court has no authority to take anything or appoint anyone until a petitioner can prove legal standing (snicker)to have brought suit in the first place.
"It's ours because we say so" doesn't cut it in a true court of Law.
The couple who bought the house, of their own free will took out a mortgage for the purchase of the house. That is a fact not under dispute. They ceased to make timely payments. That is another fact not under dispute.
*******************************************************
SO WHAT , The mortgage does not name the true parties to the agreement , the real lender is not named , the contract is VOID , not VOIDABLE , but VOID AT INCEPTION ... Wait a few weeks or months when journalists actually start to look in the right places and see how corrupt the creators of thse MBS’s were... How it was commonplace to defraud the actual investors by re-using mortgages in multiple MBS’s whenever they were short 50 or 100 million dollars worth of loans..
It is no longer a SECURED debt.
The real issue is in the article. Does the bank get a free house via fraud and lying to the courts OR do the homeowners get a free house by using the same laws the banks have used to bully individuals.
Also remember the banks recieved tarp money for these loans.