I don't particularly call myself a mutualist (mostly because of what I've understood about mutualist money and credit, which I might write about sometime). But I do at least agree with the mutualist theory of property rights.
So it seems that capitalists and other non-mutualists don't enjoy the idea of mutualist property ownership/posession, and specifically what they believe it implies about what happens with your ownership of property when you leave it to go somewhere else for awhile.
I consider it as follows:
If we assume mutualist property ownership, it is considerable that for a former owner to maintain ownership of a property while he is absent, he would pay a tenant (the new owner) to maintain claim to that ownership in his place.
In that case, the "tenant" is exercising his posession/ownership of the property by using it, as mutualist theory supposes. All the while, the earlier "owner" is paying some agreed value to the tenant in order to maintain a legitimate claim against the property upon return. This can of course be a voluntary natural-rights based agreement between individuals.
Even under mutualism, one can still make a claim on a house that he has rightfully paid to own (though not absently owned), and that right can be legitimately validated with force if necessary, if the tenant decides to fraudulently withdraw the deal by not releasing the house when the owner returns.
So simply, what does an owner do when he wishes to maintain ownership of a house while he leaves it for a year? He pays someone to own it for him.
Would a mutualist agree with that idea?
"Let us remember that no man can borrow money, as a good business transaction, under any system, unless he has the required security to make the lender whole in case he should lose the money. What a stupendous wrong is this—that a man having credit cannot use it, but must exchange it and pay a monopoly price, which is really for the privilege of using his own credit!"
Usery by Apex