Russ Roberts stole $100 000 from his employer, a company named Mifflin Inc. He used that money to build a house on a piece of land that was owned by his father. Although Roberts and his father had never formalized their arrangement with a written document, the relationship effectively was one of landlord and tenant. Roberts paid his father a small sum of money (usually around $2500) each year in exchange for the right to occupy the land. Mifflin Inc eventually discovered the theft and learned what Roberts had done with the money. The Company demanded repayment of the $100 000, plus interest. It also insisted that Roberts provide security for his repayment of the debt by creating a mortgage over the land that he occupied. When the company attempted to enforce the mortgage, however, Roberts insisted that the security was invalid. He argued that since he did not own the property, he could not impose a mortgage upon it. How would a court likely resolve the dispute? Explain your answer.