Richard, you are correct that every note I have ever read used the term "may" in reference to calling the note. This clause is, I believe, one of those phantom clauses utilized to strike fear in the hearts of investors and buyers but has no real teeth. With all of the subject to investors on Bigger Pockets, if this clause were to have any merit, surely an army of subject to investors would come forth and cite instances. From decades of experience, like many of you, I have watched the mortgage closing packages go from fewer than 20 pages many years ago to the size of the Atlanta phone book presently. I used to have to explain to colleagues, friends and clients that after we finished signing the HUD 1, the deeds, the TIL, the note and any riders, that every other document was there because some bank somewhere either got sued or lost a lawsuit about whatever the topic of the document was. For example, the no hazardous chemicals document, SERIOUSLY???!!! What is the first thing every investor or homeowner does after they buy a home? Load it up with every conceivable cleaning supply imaginable, paint, turpentine, bleach, gas for the lawnmower, etc., most of which individually violate the clause and in the proper combinations could bring the entire house down.
I have never heard of any bank or lender paying money to re-examine the title after closing to uncover all of us evil investors who learned proper asset protection or how to structure a subject to deal. Likewise, I never had a knock on the door from a lender asking if they could inspect the property to ensure that I didn't have any hazardous chemicals in the home. (Good Thing, too or I would have been sunk).
So, it will be interesting to see if anyone has ever had a note called on a performing loan due to a title transfer.