Thanks to Mystery Reader for this infuriating link. I just came from a lawyer's education course where we spent a long time hearing from judges and attorneys about mortgage foreclosure. Here's a question for you that nobody could answer:
If a bank forecloses on a mortgage, why can't the former owner stay on as a tenant and pay market rate rent if they want to, instead of being evicted? What is the point of kicking somebody out of the home and leaving it vacant? Many, probably most, people would gladly stay in their home as a renter. The bank would be getting income, the property would be maintained, there would be no disruption to the neighborhood, and the bank would own the property and could sell it to whoever they chose. If the former owner, now a renter, didn't pay the rent they could evict him like any other tenant.
Why don't banks do that instead of whining about how much vacant REO they have on their books? And why don't we have a federal law requiring them to accept that arrangement if the owner is willing and able to pay monthly rent, even if they can't pay the arrears, penalties, property tax, etc.?