That's exactly the point, fella. If the concept of property ownership is as important as you say it is (and I agree with you 100%), then why would we ever grant any concessions to a bank or other foreclosing entity that refuses to abide by the property laws of the state in which it is conducting business?
“That’s exactly the point, fella. If the concept of property ownership is as important as you say it is (and I agree with you 100%), then why would we ever grant any concessions to a bank or other foreclosing entity that refuses to abide by the property laws of the state in which it is conducting business?”
You refer to “bank or other foreclosing entity” when you should be saying “property owners”.
You are defending what is in my opinion the indefensible. The guy who didn’t pay his mortgage is irrelevant - if he wanted the property he would have paid for it.
if he simply wants to live in it, without paying rent or mortgage, then you are “granting sanction” to the squatter.
That is the problem with your argument. Sure, there are families affected when you enforce property ownership laws. That is what this ruling is all about - the emotional reaction of throwing people out of homes that they don’t own or pay for.
There are devastating societal consequences for doing what this judge is doing.