A disgruntled homeowner has had his bizarre attempt to avoid paying his mortgage dismissed after his claims were determined "incomprehensible and absurd" in a Federal Court of Australia ruling.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Joseph-Robert Scordo entered into a $357,889 mortgage with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia after purchasing an Invermay Park home in July 2015, but has since taken the bank to court over claims the agreement was fraudulent.
In a Federal Court of Australia ruling published on April 12, 2024, justice Catherine Button rubbished the self-represented man's claims as "unintelligible pseudo-legal gibberish".
Ms Button said Mr Scordo's application, which was littered with bible quotations and Latin maxims, was a difficult to understand attempt at avoiding the loan he took out with the CBA.
Mr Scordo's legal case, as outlined by the court, appeared to argue he had already paid for the loan via "promissory notes", which included the loan agreement and certificate of the title of the property.
Because of this, Mr Scordo maintained the CBA was demanding double payment by asking him to pay for the loan, and his required repayments were therefore "fraudulent and unconscionable".
Mr Scordo also argued he was forced to pay for insurance for the loan, which was also "fraudulent".
To remedy this, Mr Scordo demanded the CBA rescinded any contracts or agreements that gave the bank power over him, relinquished all claims of right to the property and returned its certificate of title.
Mr Scordo also said the CBA "forced/coerced/compelled" him to pay for insurance on the loan, and that this money should be returned.
To make matters more difficult, Mr Scordo rejected his name, which he described as a "legal fiction", and claimed he was supplied with a CBA affidavit which wasn't written in English.
"[CBA's lawyer] has knowingly committed fraud and misrepresentation, designed to mislead and harm the applicant," he said.
At one stage, the self-described "free man of the land", also tried to enforce orders from a "self-created court", which he attempted to justify under the Foreign Judgments Act.
In response, the CBA lodged four affidavits which were supported by documentation signed by Mr Scordo when he agreed to the loan.
The CBA also stated it rejected Mr Scodo's "promissory notes" as a form of payment, and had instructed him that he was required to pay the remaining sum under the loan agreement.
Both Mr Scordo and the CBA made summary judgement applications, which is where the court can make a decision without proceeding to trial if one party's position lacks a reasonable prospect of success.
In her judgement, Ms Button granted the CBA's summary jurisdiction application and dismissed Mr Scordo's demands.
She also ordered Mr Scordo to pay CBA's legal costs.
"The claims are incomprehensible and absurd. They do not enjoy a reasonable prospect of success and do not disclose a reasonable cause of action. The claims are also frivolous or vexatious," she said.
