Yeah you got any insights on the topic? Sounds to me like you fully support ending peoples property rights since you want to not discuss the actual topic.
California is the problem, because if they didn’t regulate landlord tenancy issues (which shouldn’t be a state issue) then this would be a one day affair.
He’s not a tenant so why can’t he be evicted? Do people in California not have the right to expel trespassers? This is probably some flaw in how the eviction moratorium was drafted which will hopefully be rectified quickly. Since presumably there was a contract the couple will be able ultimately to recover some of what they paid as well as the house.
Couple buys Riverside dream home, but seller refuses to move out in eviction moratorium loophole
When Tracie and Myles Albert purchased a beautiful four-bedroom house in Riverside, California they never realized that at the end of escrow the seller would suddenly refuse to give up the keys and leave.www.foxla.com
It's like they're living in the USSR:
Because leftists are extremely hostile to private property rights, that's why.
They don't call the state Commiefornia for nothin'.
Remember that progressives see California as the model for the entire nation.
He is a tenant because he claims to be which means there needs to be an eviction, oh and because it’s so unfair that some people can’t pay their rent because of the Kung flu there’s a moratorium eviction in place.
You're avoiding the point. The guy who sold the house is in possession of the house and the money so he's the one with the resources to force the couple to back down (regardless of how he chooses to do it). You might consider that the morally wrong outcome (and I'd agree) but it is the inevitable one without any kind of government or authority. The rich and strong entirely dominate the poor and weak.
Couple buys Riverside dream home, but seller refuses to move out in eviction moratorium loophole
When Tracie and Myles Albert purchased a beautiful four-bedroom house in Riverside, California they never realized that at the end of escrow the seller would suddenly refuse to give up the keys and leave.
Because leftists are extremely hostile to private property rights, that's why.
The former owner that doesn't want to leave.
Bet the Guy who won't move out is a republican.Couple buys Riverside dream home, but seller refuses to move out in eviction moratorium loophole
When Tracie and Myles Albert purchased a beautiful four-bedroom house in Riverside, California they never realized that at the end of escrow the seller would suddenly refuse to give up the keys and leave.
It's like they're living in the USSR:
Because leftists are extremely hostile to private property rights, that's why.
They don't call the state Commiefornia for nothin'.
Remember that progressives see California as the model for the entire nation.
'Cuz it's their hot body, they'll do what they want!
I say every republican who reads this should be outraged. What's wrong with the ussr, trump wants to be friends with them?Couple buys Riverside dream home, but seller refuses to move out in eviction moratorium loophole
When Tracie and Myles Albert purchased a beautiful four-bedroom house in Riverside, California they never realized that at the end of escrow the seller would suddenly refuse to give up the keys and leave.
It's like they're living in the USSR:
Because leftists are extremely hostile to private property rights, that's why.
They don't call the state Commiefornia for nothin'.
Remember that progressives see California as the model for the entire nation.
I say wait for him to leave, then break in with earplugs and backpacks full of airhorns for when he comes back.
In truth it sounds to me more like bureaucratic inertia and stupidity than maliciousness. I’d be willing to bet that the people they’re dealing with in government don’t understand the difference between “tenant” and “seller who is refusing to leave.”
Yes, but one of the purposes of government (certainly democratic government) and the society it operates within, is to temper those imbalances. It isn't perfect but it can and often does help.
I'd argue the opposite. In normal circumstances the government would support the people who bought the house by legally, or if necessary physically, removing the guy from the home. With COVID though, that kind of government action has been suspended (rightly or not) and that is why the people are stuck.
Which supports my position that government isn't perfect but not your position that government is always bad. If the government stepped in (as it would have done this time last year and for decades previously), the situation could be resolved.
Taking the money but refusing to vacate the house was private action. I'm still not clear what private action you're suggesting would be preferable here. It'd have to be something entirely outside the scope of government laws and regulations you deem unconditionally unnecessary though, and so not the collection agencies you referred to previously (which is why they probably wouldn't be willing to step in to this case either).
