If I remember correctly, the courts ruled that by missing all of the opportunities to intervene in the forfeiture process, the debtor effectively had no standing to make a claim because she no longer held any title to the property or even had a mortgage obligation anymore.
“If I remember correctly, the courts ruled ...”
They didn’t rule. They dismissed the case.
“because she no longer held any title to the property or even had a mortgage obligation anymore.”
The title was forcibly taken from her. But equity cannot be taken without due process.
As to a mortgage I have read numerous articles and briefs and only one article mentions a mortgage. All others refer to her equity.
If she was underwater before the seizure due to a mortgage and tax debt she should get nothing even if the mortgage was cancelled on seizure.
OTOH, the law should not be cancelling the mortgage to benefit the government.