Browsing: Divorce; Matrimonial Property Act; Marriage in community of property; Spousal maintenance; Mpumalanga High Court

High Court finds postnuptial contract invalid since it was never approved by a court. Wife secures an equal split of the joint estate and is granted a divorce. Court rejects her claim for rehabilitative spousal maintenance, finding there was not enough evidence to support it. The High Court in Mbombela has ruled that a postnuptial contract signed by a divorcing couple was legally invalid. Acting Judge Malose S Monene confirmed that their marriage stayed in community of property, even though both wanted to change their matrimonial property regime. Judge Monene’s judgment means their joint estate has to be divided equally, and the wife’s claim for rehabilitative maintenance was dismissed. Marriage regime was the key issue The couple married on 13 January 2016. Although they later signed what they thought would change their marriage to out of community of property with the accrual system, the wife argued that the agreement never met the requirements of South African law. In her divorce application, she asked for an equal split of the joint estate, and spousal maintenance for one year. The husband agreed the marriage had irretrievably broken down but argued that the postnuptial agreement had validly changed their matrimonial property regime, so there was no joint estate to divide. The couple had already resolved matters about their two minor children, including care and parental responsibilities, so the court only had to decide on the postnuptial agreement’s validity and the maintenance claim. Husband maintained he always wanted an out-of-community marriage Giving evidence, the wife explained that although she signed the notarial agreement, it could not legally change their marriage because the legal requirements were not followed. She also told the court that she was unemployed and wanted rehabilitative maintenance of R5,000 per month for a year, saying she had been financially dependent on her husband throughout the marriage. The husband, a senior laboratory technician earning about R24,000 per month, said he always intended to marry out of community of property to protect assets he owned before the marriage. He said Home Affairs officials told them they needed a lawyer to arrange such a marriage, and he believed the marriage was only finalised after they signed the notarial contract. He also testified that he genuinely believed they were married out of community of property the whole time. “I honestly believed I was married out of community of property throughout my marriage,” he told the court. Court says intentions cannot override the law Judge Monene accepted that the husband honestly believed the marriage had been concluded differently from what the marriage certificate showed. However, the judge said the couple were bound by what they had stated in court and by the official marriage certificate, which recorded the marriage date as 13 January 2016. The judge stressed the court’s duty to apply the law, not sympathy. “We owe fidelity not to sentiment but to the law, which binds us all and ensures justice is served,” Judge Monene said. The court explained that Section 21 of the Matrimonial Property Act says spouses who want to change their matrimonial property regime after marriage must go to court together for approval before registering a postnuptial contract. Registering a notarial agreement after marriage does not legally change the matrimonial property system. Relying on the Constitutional Court’s decision in VVC v JRM and Others, Judge Monene noted that the country’s highest court had made it clear that couples cannot privately agree to change their matrimonial property regime outside the legal process. Quoting the Constitutional Court, Judge Monene repeated, “Any extra-judicial agreement entered into by parties that effectively alters the spouses’ matrimonial property system will be invalid.” The judge also said the wife’s willingness to sign the agreement did not make it valid, because “it is inconceivable that parties’ intentions should be favoured over the statutory regime.” Maintenance claim rejected Although the wife wanted rehabilitative maintenance, the court found she did not provide enough evidence to justify it. Judge Monene said she only claimed she had no income, without showing the extent of her needs or that her husband could realistically afford the payments she wanted. The judge found that the husband’s financial responsibilities for their two children, along with his monthly income and other obligations, meant he could not afford to pay spousal maintenance. “The defendant simply does not have the financial ability to pay spousal maintenance on top of his other obligations,” Judge Monene said. The court also noted that the husband seemed to be a responsible parent who had continued to support both the children and their mother financially throughout the marriage. Final order The High Court declared the postnuptial contract invalid, granted the divorce, and ordered that the joint estate be split equally between the couple. The court also ordered that the wife get 50% of the husband’s pension interest in the SAPPI Pension Fund, dismissed her claim for spousal maintenance, confirmed shared parental responsibilities with the mother as primary caregiver, and ordered that each party pay their own legal costs. Conviction.co.za Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.

What's Hot

High Court tells NERSA to review Musina Municipality’s late electricity tariff application

Johannesburg Labour Court tightens rules for urgent applications and motion proceedings

Tribunal tells Pension Funds Adjudicator to review rejected disability benefit claim

Browsing: Divorce; Matrimonial Property Act; Marriage in community of property; Spousal maintenance; Mpumalanga High Court

Judge rules marriage stayed in community of property despite postnuptial contract

Making sectional title rules that work: A practical guide

Protection order among the consequences of trespassing in an ‘Exclusive Use Area’

Between a rock and a foul-smelling place

Irregular levy increases, mismanagement, and legal threats in a sectional title scheme

High Court tells NERSA to review Musina Municipality’s late electricity tariff application

Johannesburg Labour Court tightens rules for urgent applications and motion proceedings

Tribunal tells Pension Funds Adjudicator to review rejected disability benefit claim

Estate ordered to restore homeowner’s biometric access despite disputed levies

Latest posts

Making sectional title rules that work: A practical guide

Protection order among the consequences of trespassing in an ‘Exclusive Use Area’

Between a rock and a foul-smelling place

OUR PICKS

Legal Practice Council ordered to disclose records behind English-only admission exams

Attorney who briefs advocate remains liable for fees unless agreement states otherwise

R112,000 hospital bill reduced to R750, allowing refugee child’s body to be released for burial

Subscribe to Updates

What's Hot

Browsing: Divorce; Matrimonial Property Act; Marriage in community of property; Spousal maintenance; Mpumalanga High Court