Yesterday’s ruling involving foreclosures, which re-affirmed an earlier court decision, has certainly spurred a lot of questions and created more headaches for many lenders and buyers.

As reported by Banker & Tradesman, Massachusetts Land Court Judge Keith Long refused to change a ruling he made in March when he found that two lenders had improperly foreclosed on two Springfield homes because they didn’t hold the mortgages at the time of the auction sales.

My initial reaction was good for the judge for admonishing lenders and servicers for their sloppy practices.

But after listening to some of the critics, I’m definitely confused.

Some attorneys say the ruling has forced lenders to hold back on foreclosing and selling properties where the homeowners have defaulted on their loans.

This isn’t going to help the housing market and economy recover any faster. It’s just going to delay and stall the inevitable foreclosures and auction sales that will likely occur down the road.

Will it lead to flood of bank-owned properties hitting the market at the same time?  

The ruling has also frustrated city leaders trying to get vacant homes occupied and rehabbed. They say they can’t proceed with plans to purchase foreclosed properties because of title problems.

Advocates for homeowners facing foreclosure are cheering the ruling. They argue that foreclosures should be overseen by the courts because too many lenders have ignored the laws.

Here’s my question: does this ruling mean that delinquent borrowers can stay in their homes for months without paying a nickel? How is that fair to all the unemployed homeowners who are scraping by but still managing to make their monthly mortgage payments?