WRONG , The homeowner still owes on the note (although it is unenforceable) , that is not in dispute ,,, the lender wasn’t even a part of the trial , just the bank that was pretending to be the lender .. THIS WILL STAND!
Correct. There is still an underlying debt, whether it is collateralized by the home or not is the question. Even an unsecured loan will result in action - it's just a longer road to get to the underlying assets (ie house). If the foreclosure is stopped, the lender can sue for default on an unsecured loan and obtain a judgement against the homeowner. If the homeowner fails to satisfy the judgement, then the lender can seek to garnish wages and or take possession of assets to satisfy the judgement. If the home is not considered security or a lienhold, then it is an asset - it is one of the two. In the end the deadbeat borrower will need to satisfy the obligation of the loan. It is just a matter of how to go about obtaining remedy.
Part of me is glad to see the institutions getting railroaded for creating complex financial instruments which could never receive oversight. At the same time, I cannot stand the thought of someone defaulting on their obligation and receiving a benefit for being irresponsible. MERS is a joke, as is fractional banking - a quick return to basics is sorely needed.