I don't think the ownership question is nearly as important as the valuation. As I recall, one of the Boston newspapers found that the valuation--and hence the size of the loan obtained--was extremely higher than comparable homes which were similarly situated and recently mortgaged.
In other words, Kerry got a sweetheart deal from the mortgage company.
I agree ... but that is where the legality of the deal becomes suspect. The loan was against equity that he did not have -- Teresa's equity. Teresa's backing is solid if implicit. Given our wonderfully goofy campaign finance laws, did Teresa [or the mortgage company] make a "campaign contribution?"