There’s a common trope among people who have collateralized debt that, until the debt is cleared, they never truly own their property. For example, the bank holds the mortgage, and if mortgage payments aren’t made, the bank can seize the house. The trope says that the “pay to stay” nature of the loan means the bank truly owns the house, not the person who purchased it using their mortgage. Despite how common this trope is, it is incorrect. It fundamentally misunderstands the legal nature of ownership.
Ownership of property comes with certain rights. The owner has the right to exclude: they can rightfully prevent others from using their property without their permission. The owner has the right to use (or not use) their property; they may enjoy (or not enjoy) the property as they see fit. The owner has the right to dispose of the property: they may sell it, transfer it, or in some other way relinquish ownership of the property at their pleasure. Furthermore, the owner may enjoy the fruits of the property (including the disposal) at their pleasure. In short, the owner exercises control over the property.
That control, however, is not absolute. Ownership also comes with responsibilities. One may not use their property to interfere with the legal rights of another person; I cannot use my car to damage another person’s house. The owner is responsible for the safety of individuals within their property. And they are responsible for the upkeep of their property.
There is a whole body of law related to these rights and responsibilities. A broad overview of property law is beyond the scope of this piece. Rather, we will focus on these unique characteristics of ownership.
...read more at econlib.org
pull down to refresh
related posts
Agree with respect to the bank but it’s not as clear how to think about the state.
States generally claim the right to make rules that would change what property owners are allowed to do. That does make it more like a landlord tenant situation, where the tenant is granted certain privileges by the landlord.
Use UCC-1 and see if they can make again that claim...
They make that claim because their whole sharrade is based on slavery by consent.
I’ll look into that