Why should we care that an employee of GMAC Mortgage admitted to signing 400 foreclosure affidavits a day without reading the loan files to verify that the information in the affidavits was correct?

The outrage over the GMAC robo-signer and his counterparts at other mortgage companies caused several large mortgage servicers to halt foreclosures, which in turn led people to question the effect of these bad documents. Did buyers at faulty foreclosure sales receive good title? (Most likely yes — the law protects title obtained as a result of a foreclosure judgment). Weren’t the homeowners who lost their homes in default anyway? If so, why does it matter that the documents were faulty?

The second two questions beg for an explanation of the business context in which the robo-signers operate. The very term “robo-signer” suggests automation of the signing process, even though humans are, in fact, signing the documents. But the act of signing the documents is the end of a highly automated mortgage servicing process that operates with no human intervention and is well-known to be prone to mistakes.

The harms of automation are many. In recent weeks, the securitization system has come under attack because in the financial world’s zeal to make mortgage debt easily transferable, responsible parties failed to accurately track the paths that mortgage paper often takes. Even when the correct person is foreclosing on the mortgage, the documents are often rife with mistakes.

Subprime mortgage loans carry high fees. Lots of high fees. High fees generated by automated systems with no human intervention. A bankruptcy case filed in Louisiana several years ago illustrates some of the harms of automation. Before filing for bankruptcy, the homeowner had missed one mortgage payment and, for the next several months, paid an extra $100 with each paymentr to make up her missed payment. Because the servicer’s automated system considered each subsequent payment to be late, it ordered numerous inspections of the property, each of which resulted in fees being added to her debt. When a human being finally looked at the records in the bankruptcy case, it became clear that two different houses were inspected. Even more shockingly, one of the inspections was reportedly conducted on a date on which the inspection would have been impossible — the area in which the house was located was under an evacuation order because of Hurricane Katrina. This is not an isolated incident — when a homeowner makes a late payment or an insufficient payment, these systems often fail to apply the payment to the debt owed, diverting the payments to “suspense accounts.” As a result, every subsequent payment is registered as a late payment, resulting in additional late fees, interest charges, inspection fees and fees for other default-related services.

Americans trust that a well-functioning legal system will protect their basic rights. Most people know that a person cannot be convicted of a crime without a properly conducted legal process. To ensure that a criminal trial is conducted properly, the judge will allow only evidence that was properly obtained, even if “everyone knows” that the defendant is guilty. Some may consider this rule to be unfair, but it protects the integrity of our legal system.

Those faced with the loss of their homes also deserve the protection of a well-functioning legal system. Our courts ensure that people do not lose property or liberty without due process of law. When documents are created by automated processes and signed with no human verification that these processes are accurate, the court system’s effectiveness in protecting property rights is called into question. The evidence before the court is unreliable. So are the witnesses.

Even if a homeowner has missed a payment on her mortgage, she is still entitled to accurate information from the bank in order to defend herself. Maybe she will lose her home anyway, but there is a dispute over how much she owes (in the overwhelming majority of states, a homeowner whose home is worth less than the amount owing on the mortgage is liable for a deficiency). Maybe she has filed for bankruptcy in order to cure defaults and keep her home. Courts need accurate information from the banks in order to resolve these disputes. Whether the homeowner is in state court fighting foreclosure or in Bankruptcy Court fighting to save her home, she needs accurate information from the person best able to provide her with her payment history, the mortgage servicer. If this payment history is recorded in a completely automated system, some human being must review it before it is presented in court. A person who is signing 10,000 affidavits a month is clearly not reviewing these files. A homeowner facing foreclosure can ill afford to investigate the accuracy of a servicer’s accounting system. The integrity of the legal process depends on this accuracy.

Juliet M. Moringiello is a professor at Widener University School of Law.

Americans trust that a well-functioning legal system will protect their basic rights. Most people know that a person cannot be convicted of a crime without a properly conducted legal process. To ensure that a criminal trial is conducted properly, the judge will allow only evidence that was properly obtained, even if “everyone knows” that the defendant is guilty. Some may consider this rule to be unfair, but it protects the integrity of our legal system.

Those faced with the loss of their homes also deserve the protection of a well-functioning legal system. Our courts ensure that people do not lose property or liberty without due process of law. When documents are created by automated processes and signed with no human verification that these processes are accurate, the court system’s effectiveness in protecting property rights is called into question. The evidence before the court is unreliable. So are the witnesses.

Even if a homeowner has missed a payment on her mortgage, she is still entitled to accurate information from the bank in order to defend herself. Maybe she will lose her home anyway, but there is a dispute over how much she owes (in the overwhelming majority of states, a homeowner whose home is worth less than the amount owing on the mortgage is liable for a deficiency). Maybe she has filed for bankruptcy in order to cure defaults and keep her home. Courts need accurate information from the banks in order to resolve these disputes. Whether the homeowner is in state court fighting foreclosure or in Bankruptcy Court fighting to save her home, she needs accurate information from the person best able to provide her with her payment history, the mortgage servicer. If this payment history is recorded in a completely automated system, some human being must review it before it is presented in court. A person who is signing 10,000 affidavits a month is clearly not reviewing these files. A homeowner facing foreclosure can ill afford to investigate the accuracy of a servicer’s accounting system. The integrity of the legal process depends on this accuracy.

Juliet M. Moringiello is a professor at Widener University School of Law.