The bank does not own your mortgaged house. They have a claim on it when it comes time to liquidate. It's easy to see that the homeowner "owns" the house: they can rent it to anyone else at any rate, raising rates as the market changes; the bank is stuck with the terms of the 30 year mortgage.
Good point. But there does seem to me (never owned a home) that there is a qualitative difference between someone who owns their home in the clear, and someone who is using their home as collateral for a loan, which I thought the original poster was getting at. I might be way off though.
Sure there is: one homeowner has a couple hundred thousand dollars of secured debt, and the other doesn't. In neither case is there any practical difference vis a vis the house itself. The homeowner who "owns his home free and clear" can still lose the house owing to any other major debt; there are even states where you are likely to lose your house in a conventional bankruptcy.
