A lot of these discussions are ultimately going to end up being completely pointless anyway. I believe we are about to enter another phase of the collapsing real estate market where things are going to go from confusing to downright bizarre. I've already seen signs of this in commercial real estate . . . where a borrower fails to make payments on a mortgage for months, and yet the mortgage holder (owner) refuses to even bother foreclosing -- because the cost of owning the property from a functional standpoint (i.e., maintaining it and paying taxes on it) isn't even worth their while to go through the foreclosure process.
“If you don’t have a clear title to property (or hold a mortgage on it) then you aren’t the property owner — plain and simple.”
Ah, but this judge has taken “plain and simple” and made it impossibly complex. It is in the best interest of the law and for society, and for localities to make is “plain and simple” to identify who actually owns the property.
This judge is engaging in populist BS - and running roughshod over property rights to do so.
If the law were “plain and simple” as it should be with property matters, there would be no argument. Thanks to the judge, it’s much more difficult to determine simple concepts.
That is a small part of the thinking behind not foreclosing. The biggest consideration from the Bank's view is their balance sheet. Once they start foreclosure on that commercial property the loan goes from an asset to a liability and they have to increase their reserves to compensate for it. Also, the Bank's know commercial real estate is in a depression and if the current owner in default manages the property well they have a chance to restructure the loan.