I do not agree that we should change our courts to accommodate what amounts to loan sharking. If an institution lends money to people it knows likely can't pay it back, it not only shouldn't get our help in bankruptcy court, it oughta land 'em in jail. It's fraud--to the borrower, and to the stockholders of the bank, and to the banking public.
But doesn't this assume that the individual is incapable of making decisions for himself? If we accept that as a premise it has profound implications for a free society.
Loansharking? If a financial institution lends money to those who can't pay it back, they lose it. Nothing happens to the consumer other than a worse credit rating. No fingers are broken, they aren't beaten up.
Ever hear "a fool and his money are soon parted?" Sometimes the fool is the consumer, sometimes it is the bank. If a bank buys a loan held by someone with a 10 to 1 debt to income ratio, the big loser is the bank.
Sometimes we do need corrections to flush the chumps, but capitalism is not about people ripping each other off. A builder that builds shoddy, overvalued homes to people who can't afford them is eating their seed corn. It won't be long before nobody will give them the time of day.
Plus, a lot of these people complaining about property values fouled their own nest. Which comes to another reason why a bargain house may not be such a bargain. If you wind up surrounded by people who can't be bothered to mow the lawn and keep their property up, you will be just as bad off as if you spent too much.