Banks have lost many foreclosure cases for two reasons, both resulting from recent changes in the mortgage market. First, securitization has created widespread errors in mortgage notes’ chains of assignment, making it difficult for banks to prove that they in fact own any particular mortgage. Second, securitization contracts incentivize banks to use “foreclosure mill” law firms to keep up with the flood of defaults, despite the fact that these firms are unable and sometimes unwilling to detect and rectify basic legal errors.

When addressing faulty foreclosures, courts are afraid to bar future attempts to foreclose—that is, afraid of giving borrowers “free houses.” While courts rarely explain the reasoning behind this aversion, it seems to arise from a reflexive belief that such an outcome would be unjust.1 Courts are therefore quick to sidestep well-established principles of res judicata in favor of ad hoc measures meant to protect banks against the specter of “free houses.”

_________________________________

Yale Law Journal – In Defense of “Free Houses”

Feb 4, 2016 – In Defense of “Free Houses”. Megan Wachspress,
Jessie Agatstein & Christian Mott. Eight years after the start of
America’s housing crisis, state …
_________________________________

Related Articles

• Point: The Greed of Big Business Caused the Subprime Mortgage Crisis. Reed, M.; Konczal, Ed // Points of View: Sub-prime Mortgage Crisis;3/1/2016, p2The article argues that the subprime mortgage crisis in the twenty-first century was primarily caused by the predatory lending practices of financial institutions and mortgage providers which targeted low-income, minority and elderly citizens. Lenders are said to have offered products with…