If you and "the bank" own your property, "the bank" should have no rights? I have little to no sympathy for banks with the interest they pay vs. the interest they charge. I agree that "the bank" has some pretty despicable practices that need to be curtailed but unless you own the property outright, you probably wouldn't "own" that property without "the bank".
Just to clarify, the bank owns my mortgage, not my house. The deed is in my name, I merely gave them a mortgage using the home as collateral. Two separate things.
Also, if the bank didn't loan me the money, there were and are other options I can pursue including private loans, contracts with the owner, etc. You have invested too much faith in banking like many others. They like that. The very thought that people might find another route than home ownership with a long term mortgage, is plenty scary to alot of bankers. It serves them well to deceive thru scare tactics like bad credit reporting, foreclosure notices etc.
Given what I know now, I would never have offered a mortgage to any banker. I would have bought land with mineral rights intact, with cash savings and built my own home using the skills I acquired working construction in my youth and the novel engineering of recycling and self sufficiency principles I observed in college.
That would probably had ended up with me living in a half submerged cave type dwelling with tires as walls, a wind turbine, a christmas tree farm, on a stream in north Tulsa somewhere and lots of cash buried nearby. And guns, lots of guns.