Reply #2: i'm no expert in 1880's iowa law, but if the mortgage wasn't valid

[unblock]

then how does one characterize the proceeds of the voided mortgage.

the money went from the bank to the homeowners in exchange for nothing. legally, that would be what...?

a gift?
a theft?
a con?

my vote is for **FRAUD**. per the article, the loan application listed matthew as "unmarried", so legally, the bank could easily argue that it was deceived into thinking there was no second signature to be required.

generally speaking, if a contract is declared null and void, you don't just say whoever's ahead wins and whoever's behind loses, ha, ha. you try to go back to square one and fix it so that it's as if the contract never happened. the bank did not gift the money, so it's still theirs. i.e., the homeowners have to repay it.

the MORTGAGE isn't valid, but the MONEY is still the bank's.