Thanks Robert, for providing this subject for conversation. As the discussion progressed, it started to become apparent that the omission of the cyclist being part of the foreclosure action was a clue. Several posters picked up on that.

The fact that the question specifically mentioned the two lender were joined in the suit should have been a red flag, but I had thought it was there to confirm that the second was valid.

This is a good though-provoking conversation. How about a "BAR question of the week" post?