Also, the state already entered the game when evictions were suspended. If the choice from your lender as a landlord is bankruptcy or having your mortgage term extended by 18 months, with an 18 month interest-free payment holiday now, if you have hard-up tenants, what would you choose?
(1) Landlords arr often ibdividuals, and (2) in any case, no, they apply to legal persons, generally.
> Also, the state already entered the game when evictions were suspended
There's a reason for different tolerance for litigation risk in those two actions, but in any case by providing essentially full-value compensation for the losses due to the earlier action, this action is not only on firmer ground viewed individually, but also greatly mitigates remaining litigation risk from the earlier action.
They shouldn't, but the fifth and fourteenth amendments exist and retroactively voiding the debt (including forced settlement at a reduced state-judged-as-fair rate looks a lot like either a taking or a deprivation of property without substantive due process, so it is, at best, a magnet for extended and uncertain litigation if anyone isn’t happy with it, and someone won't be; full-value settlement is the fastest way to resolve the adverse impacts of the crisis on renters and landlords, preventing a wave of evictions and/or a wave of ruin for innocent landlords. Is it perfectly just? No. But its almost certainly the resolution that deals with the immediate problem in a way which has the least risk of being derailed by litigation.