Caruso v Ravenswood P/L

Mr Caruso appeals against an order made on 7 September 2016 by a Master of the Supreme Court of South Australia for possession of a property located within 70 days pursuant to Part 17 of the Real Property Act 1886 (SA) ("the RPA"). The respondent, Ravenswood Pty Ltd, had issued proceedings seeking an order for possession of the property, relying on several affidavits from a director of the company. The legal issues before the court included whether the mortgagee was entitled to possession of the property, and whether Mr Caruso's inability to refinance or sell the property justified an extension of time to comply with the mortgage terms.

The court examined the terms of the mortgage and the respondent's entitlement to possession under the RPA. Mr Caruso had agreed to repay the loan by 1 May 2016, but no payment had been made. Despite being granted a stay, Mr Caruso had been unable to sell the property or refinance the debt. The court noted that Mr Caruso had been provided ample opportunity to arrange refinancing or to sell the property, but had not been able to do so. The current value of the property was $732,000, while the amount due under the mortgage was $901,063.90, resulting in a loan-to-value ratio of 123%. Given Mr Caruso's inability to comply with his obligations under the mortgage, the court concluded that the respondent was entitled to exercise its right to possession.

The court dismissed Mr Caruso's appeal and lifted the stay imposed on 31 October 2016, thereby upholding the order for possession of the property. The respondent is entitled to exercise its right to possession of the property pursuant to the mortgage and the RPA, and the order for possession remains in effect.