No right of redemption in CA, you don’t need to worry about that. I personally can’t imagine your actually losing the home. You are a bonafide purchaser for value and were not a party to any issues that occurred prior to your purchase. The theory there being that the prior owner may have a case against the lender, but that should not impact you. The fact that they lost the house can be considered in the damages against the lender, but you are an innocent third party. Title insurance won’t insure you get to keep the home. The most valuable thing it would do is cover legal fees should someone bring a case, and losses should you lose. These are crazy days so I won’t say it is impossible, but I really think you are worrying about a very, very, unlikely event. Finally, I really don’t believe “robo-signing” meets the criteria necessary to be considered “fraud”. The following is from a Bloomberg story that quotes a federal judge who has thrown out multiple homeowner suits on the MERS issue: ---- "Dozens of lawsuits claiming MERS itself is a fraud have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings in federal court in Phoenix. The homeowners haven?t fared well there. In September 2009, U.S. District Judge James Teilborg threw out an earlier case with similar accusations. On Sept. 30, he tossed six proposed class-action, or group, lawsuits. Teilborg found the defaulting homeowners failed to sufficiently allege that MERS and its members conspired to commit fraud because it?s not a true beneficiary under the trust deed. They also fail to explain how MERS, as a ??sham? beneficiary,? diminishes their need to pay back the money they borrowed, the judge said. ?At most, plaintiffs find the MERS system to be disagreeable and inconvenient to them as consumers,? Teilborg wrote. " ---- I think that pretty much sums up my view on this issue. While I totally get why homeowners are angry at banks, I don’t think they ultimately have a case.