Thank you homesalvationgal
Your answer is sort of what I was looking for. Maybe two banks didn't try to sue this lady at the same time, but they did so a very short space apart. I was thinking of the story of Solomon when I composed that question.
I was thinking of the case of Solomon and the case of the two women who claimed to be the mother of the same baby. Solomon said that he would cut the baby in two and that way both women could have a piece of the child. One woman said no, don't do that, and that Solomon should give the child to the other woman, rather than kill him. Solomon gave the child to this woman (the woman who offered to give the child to the other woman) recognizing that she must be the true mother.
You have something like this, more sinister of course, with the post-sub prime crash land grab on the part of the banks (as a matter of fact I would recommend you read a hub by a hubber called TheMoneyGuy "The Ownership Fallacy") I think a lot of these banks were institutional investors in these assets; they were having a good time, making profits hand over fist, as they say, as the bubble was rising.
But now that the bubble has burst (as bubbles must do), the board of directors of some of those financial institutions -- in a fit of what I call Neo-Feudalist rage, are flailing about blindly in an attempt to recoup their losses -- by sending out foreclosure notices, at random to huge swaths of working class families (knowing that they do not know if they own those mortgages).
This really says something about the ruling class and the proprietary feeling they have to the rest of the population. Thanks again for your thoughtful answer.