In relation to a land contract, which remedy is NOT available for default?

The correct answer identifies that changing locks and holding belongings as security is not a legally recognized remedy available for default in a land contract scenario. In the context of land contracts, a default typically gives the seller certain remedies, but these must adhere to legal standards and the specifics of the contract.

Changing locks and holding personal belongings as a means of security can lead to legal repercussions, including accusations of wrongful eviction. Such actions violate tenants' rights and do not follow the proper procedures for recovering possession or enforcing a land contract. Legal remedies are designed to ensure fairness and protect the rights of both parties, which is why they must involve judicial processes rather than self-help measures.

In contrast, treating defaulting buyers as renters and proceeding to evict them is a lawful avenue under certain conditions that would typically be outlined in the land contract itself. Similarly, hiring an attorney for collection of owed amounts is a generally accepted legal recourse, as is following foreclosure steps, if applicable, to reclaim the property through a formal process. Each of these remedies provides a structured way to resolve disputes arising from a default in payments or terms of a land contract, unlike the option of changing locks and retaining belongings, which bypasses legal protocols and could lead to further complications for the seller.