Browsed by
Category: Marriage

GETTING MARRIED – YOUR NETT VALUE CAN BE KEPT PRIVATE

GETTING MARRIED – YOUR NETT VALUE CAN BE KEPT PRIVATE

Angela Baker and Stanton du Doit are both wealthy individuals but they enjoy maintaining an ordinary lifestyle. They consulted with a MHI notary who explained that their ante nuptial contract will be registered at the Deeds Office and will in effect be a public document. They enquired with their notary about whether there is an alternative option to keep their current financial position private. There is a solution to their problem; they can declare their nett commencement values of their respective estates by executing a statement in terms of section 6 (1) of the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984.

Herewith are the necessary stipulations to comply with section 6 (1):

  • Ante nuptial contract must be executed and registered at the Deeds Office
  • The statement declaring their respective estates must be executed before the marriage is entered into or within 6 (six) months of the commencement of their marriage
  • The statement must be signed by both parties
  • The statement must be attested by a notary
  • The statement can be executed before the same notary that executed their ante nuptial contract or it can be executed by a different notary

Angela and Stanton’s net commencement value remains private as the section 6 (1) statement is not lodged and registered at the Deeds Office but is filed in the protocol of their notary before whom their ante nuptial contract was executed.

It is best to consult with your MHI notary to ensure that your section 6 (1) statement is executed according to the provisions of our law as failure to properly execute same will mean that your nett commencement value is R 0 and can have grave consequences at dissolution of the marriage.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

 

AM I STILL LIABLE FOR MY SPOUSE’S DEBT AFTER DIVORCE?

AM I STILL LIABLE FOR MY SPOUSE’S DEBT AFTER DIVORCE?

A husband and wife buy a house together. Their marriage takes a tumble, along with their ­finances, and they have to sell their home and are left with an outstanding mortgage bond. They subsequently got divorced. The couple is concerned about what will happen to the debts and who will be ­responsible for paying them.

Who pays what after divorce?

If the couple was married in ­community of property, the debt on the property is a joint debt. They will be jointly and severally liable. This means that each partner is not just liable for half the debt now that they are divorced, in fact the bank can seek the full amount from either of them. The one spouse who is held liable by the bank would then have a claim of 50% of the debt against the other, but it would be his or her responsibility to collect that debt (not the bank’s). Alternatively, the bank may agree to accept 50% from one person and release them from the ­liability, but it does not have to.

Sometimes, the divorce settlement makes a special mention of the mortgage. But if there is no clause in the divorce, the joint liability principle applies. After a divorce, the husband and wife should present their bank with a copy of the divorce settlement. This will remove any uncertainty about ownership and liability for bond payments.

Getting divorced while under debt review

If you get divorced while you are under debt review and you have the debt review court order in place, then this will need to be rescinded and for new debt counselling applications to be started, as in order to follow on with the debt counselling process you will need to reapply, but will now need to be seen as two single applications. A new budget and new proposals will also have to be drawn up.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

References:

“Debt And Divorce”. News24. N.p., 2017. Web. 12 June 2017.

“Debt Review After A Divorce Settlement – Debt Review”. Debtbusters. N.p., 2017. Web. 13 June 2017.

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE FAMILY ADVOCATE

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE FAMILY ADVOCATE

A3bThe Family Advocate has many duties but in the context of Divorce Law, they are mostly consulted for making sure that all Parenting Plans and divorce Consent Papers are in the best interest of any minor children involved. The public can, however, also have access to the Family Advocate and it is important to note that they offer a free service.

The roles of the Family Advocate include the following: to provide education to family members and to others involved in the systems serving the family and youth; to help identify the strengths and needs of families; to be a mediator between the system and the family by helping to educate professionals on the strengths and needs of the family; to help family members understand the different roles of the agencies involved in the system and how they may affect the family and assist families in identifying and utilizing necessary services.

A Family Advocate helps state and local agencies and systems adopt more strengths-based and family-driven programs, policies, and services. The focus is to better meet the needs of families and their youth who have mental illness, co-occurring disorders or substance use disorders and improve outcomes for all, including families, youth, and the agencies they utilize.

A Family Advocate also has the authority to draft Parenting Plans at no cost which will help provide the minor child with a stable and suitable schedule between the two parents. A Family Advocate cannot however provide for a maintenance amount as this falls under the jurisdiction of the maintenance court. Should a parent feel like they are not sure of their rights or responsibilities towards their minor child, the Family Advocate can be approached in order to arrange a meeting between the two parties to mediate the rights and responsibilities between the two parties. This process is also at no cost, however should one of the parties deny the meeting, the Family Advocate has no authority to subpoena them to attend the meeting.

The Family Advocate is a perfect remedy for parents who have their child’s best interest at heart and who aim to provide a stable environment for the child when both parents are no longer together.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

WAT IS DIE ROL VAN DIE GESINSADVOKAAT

WAT IS DIE ROL VAN DIE GESINSADVOKAAT

A3bDie Gesinsadvokaat het baie pligte, maar in die konteks van Egskeidingsreg word hul meestal geraadpleeg om te verseker dat alle Ouerskap-planne en Skikkingsaktes in ʼn egskeiding in die beste belange van enige minderjarige kinders betrokke, geskied. Die publiek het egter ook toegang tot die Gesinsadvokaat en dit is belangrik om daarop te let dat hul gratis dienste aanbied.

Die rol van die Gesinsadvokaat sluit die volgende in: om familielede en ander wat betrokke in te lig rakende die onderskeie stelsels en regulasies wat in plek gestel is om die gesien en minderjariges te help, om te help met die identifisering van die sterkpunte en behoeftes van gesinne; om ‘n bemiddelaar aan te stel om die sterkpunte en behoeftes van die gesin te ontwikkel; om familielede te help om die verskillende rolle van die agentskappe wat betrokke is in die stelsel te verstaan, sowel as  hoe hulle die gesin kan beïnvloed en kan help in die identifiseringsproses en die optimale benutting van die dienste wat verskaf word.

‘n Gesinsadvokaat help Staats- en Plaaslike agentskappe en stelsels om sterker familie-gedrewe programme, standpunte en beleide aan te neem. Die fokus is om te voldoen aan die behoeftes van die families en enige minderjariges in die familie wat geestelike afwykings het, die voorkoms van afwykings, hetsy as gevolg van die misbruik van dwelmmiddels al dan nie, en om die omstandighede vir almal betrokke te verbeter – dit sluit familie, jeugdiges, en die agentskappe wat gebruik word in.

‘n Gesinsadvokaat het ook die outoriteit om, vry van enige kostes, Ouerskap-planne op te stel wat sal help te verseker dat daar ʼn stabiele en geskikte skedule, wat in die minderjarige se voordeel sal wees, tussen die twee ouers bestaan. ‘n Gesinsadvokaat kan egter nie voorsiening maak vir ‘n onderhoudsbedrag nie, aangesien dit onder die jurisdiksie van die onderhoudshof val. Indien ‘n ouer nie seker is van hul regte of verpligtinge teenoor hul minderjarige kind nie, kan die Gesinsadvokaat ‘n vergadering tussen die twee partye reël om die regte en verantwoordelikhede tussen die twee partye te bemiddel. Daar is ook geen kostes aan die proses verbonde nie, maar as een van die partye nie die vergadering wil bywoon nie, kan die Gesinsadvokaat nie die party dagvaar om teenwoordig te wees nie.

Die Gesinsadvokaat is ‘n perfekte oplossing vir die ouers wat hul kind se beste belange op die hart dra en wat beoog om ‘n stabiele omgewing vir die kind te maak wanneer beide ouers nie meer saam is nie.

Hierdie is ‘n algemene inligtingstuk en moet gevolglik nie as regs- of ander professionele advies benut word nie. Geen aanspreeklikheid kan aanvaar word vir enige foute of weglatings of enige skade of verlies wat volg uit die gebruik van enige inligting hierin vervat nie. Kontak altyd u regsadviseur vir spesifieke en toegepaste advies.

VINNIGE EGSKEIDINGS IN KAAPSTAD

VINNIGE EGSKEIDINGS IN KAAPSTAD

MHI_A4BEgskeidings kan baie hartverskeurend, duur en tydrowend wees wanneer partye nie op ‘n skikking kan ooreenkom nie.

Tog is alle hoop nie verlore nie. Baie jong paartjies kies om te trou in terme van ‘n huweliksvoorwaardekontrak (hierna verwys as “hvk”) waarin hulle hul eiendom verklaar, asook watter bates buite rekening gelaat moet word. As ‘n paartjie nie ‘n hvk geteken het voor hul getrou het nie, kan hulle steeds op ‘n skikkingsooreenkoms besluit teen die tyd wanneer hulle paadjies skei, en kan hulle dit op skrif stel. Hierdie skikking word ‘n Skikkingsakte genoem en vorm deel van die finale egskeidingsbevel.

‘n Skikkingsakte sit die voorwaardes uiteen in terme waarvan die partye kies om hul eiendom, wat hulle tydens hulle huwelik bekom het en steeds het, te verdeel. ‘n Skikkingsakte vervat ook bepalings rakende die onderhoud, kindersorg, mediese sorg en enige ander probleme wat kan ontstaan met betrekking tot hul minderjarige kinders. ‘n Skikkingsakte kan ‘n onbeperkte aantal kere verander word voor dit deur die Hof geëndosseer word, solank beide partye op die veranderinge ooreenkom. Sodra die partye so ‘n Skikkingsakte aangegaan het en die dagvaarding alreeds beteken is op die Verweerder, kan die partye binne ‘n week ‘n finale egskeidingsbevel bekom. Dit is belangrik om daarop te let dat waar minderjarige kinders betrokke is, dit eers deur die Gesinsadvokaat geëndosseer moet word ten einde te verseker dat die reëlings rakende die minderjarige kinders ooreenstem met die Kinderwet. Indien daar geen probleme is met die reëlings rakende die minderjarige kinders nie, sal die Gesinsadvokaat slegs sowat twee dae neem om dit af te handel.

‘n Egskeidingsbevel wat ‘n Skikkingsakte inkorporeer, kan in die Streekshof of Hooggeregshof verkry word. Die Kaapse Hooggeregshof het jurisdiksie oor die Wes-Kaap en is ‘n vinnige hof wanneer dit kom by die finalisering van ‘n egskeidingsaak. Die partye kan hul eie datum in die Kaapse Hooggeregshof kies, solank dit op ‘n hofdatum val, en al wat nodig is, is ‘n kennisgewing van ter rolle plasing. Hierdie kennisgewing dien as ‘n bespreking vir daardie datum en as kennis aan die Verweerder dat die saak op dié datum aangehoor sal word.

Een of albei party moet teenwoordig wees by die hof op die datum soos aangedui in die kennisgewing van ter tolle plasing. Dit word sterk aanbeveel dat die partye van ‘n advokaat gebruik maak om die proses so vinnig en pynvry as moontlik te maak.

‘n Egskeiding is nooit aangenaam nie, maar ‘n mens moet onthou dat dieselfde partye wat nou om ‘n egskeiding vra eens op ‘n tyd beloftes aan mekaar gemaak het om mekaar te versorg. Egskeidings hoef nie jare en baie trane te kos nie; dit kan vinnig en hoflik afgehandel word. Selfs al het die huwelik nie gehou nie, sal die herinneringe vir ewig bly.

Hierdie is ‘n algemene inligtingstuk en moet gevolglik nie as regs- of ander professionele advies benut word nie. Geen aanspreeklikheid kan aanvaar word vir enige foute of weglatings of enige skade of verlies wat volg uit die gebruik van enige inligting hierin vervat nie. Kontak altyd u regsadviseur vir spesifieke en toegepaste advies.

FAST DIVORCES IN CAPE TOWN

FAST DIVORCES IN CAPE TOWN

MHI_A4BDivorces can be heartbreaking, painful, costly and time consuming when parties cannot reach a settlement between themselves.

However, all hope is not lost. Many young couples choose to get married in terms of an antenuptial contract, which states what each party declared to be excluded from the matrimonial estate and will remain each party’s exclusive property. If a couple does not have an antenuptial contract when they choose to go their separate ways, but already have a settlement in mind, whether it be with regard to property or children, they have the option of entering into a Consent Paper.

A Consent Paper states the terms on which the parties choose to divide their property or items that they have accrued over time. A Consent Paper should also deal with the maintenance, child care, medical care and any other issues that can arise with regards to minor children. A Consent Paper can be edited many times before it is endorsed by the Court, as long as both parties are in agreement. Once the parties are in agreement and summons has been served on the Defendant, the parties can obtain a final divorce order as soon as the following week. It is important to take note that where there are minor children involved, the Consent Paper must first be endorsed by the Family advocate in order to make sure that the arrangements regarding the care of such minor children are in line with the provisions of the Children’s Act. If there aren’t any issues with the arrangements as set out in the Consent Paper the Family advocate usually only takes about two days to endorse the Consent Paper.

A divorce order incorporating the Consent Paper may be obtained in the Regional Court or the High Court. The Cape Town High Court has jurisdiction over the Western Cape and is a speedy court when it comes to divorce matters that have been settled. The parties can choose their own divorce date in the Cape Town High Court provided that such date falls on a court date. This notice serves as booking for that date and as notice to the Defendant of such date.

One or both of the parties have to be present in court on the date as set out in the Notice of Set Down. However, it is advisable to use the services of an advocate in order to make the process as efficient and painfree as possible.

A divorce is never pleasant, but one should remember that once upon a time, the same parties that are asking for a divorce now, made promises to each other to take care of each other for better or for worse. Divorces don’t need to cost many years and tears, it can be finalised amicably and quickly. Even though the marriage itself was not meant to be, the memories will last forever.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

True love, or easy paycheck?

True love, or easy paycheck?

A1blThe issues that are dealt with in this article is whether a partner is entitled to maintenance from the other partner in terms of a Divorce Order if the partner that is asking for maintenance, is living with / or has a new relationship, where that partner is already maintaining him / her. We will deal with case law and the Maintenance Act 99 of 1998.

You’re soon to be ex-wife has moved on and is now happily living with a new partner. They are in a stable, supportive relationship and her new partner doesn’t seem short of cash.

Everyone is living happily ever after, so why should you pay maintenance to your ex-wife?

The judgment of Harlech-Jones v Harlech-Jones [2012] ZASCA 19 has reference. The issue in this case is whether a husband is obliged to pay maintenance to his former wife, who is involved in a relationship with another man, after divorce.

The duty of support

Neither spouse has a statutory right to maintenance. The language in the Divorce Act is clearly discretionary and the ex-spouse seeking an award for maintenance has no right as such. The court will consider the following factors before deciding whether to award spousal maintenance:

  1. The existing or prospective means of each party
  2. Their respective earning capacities
  3. Their financial needs and obligations
  4. Their age
  5. The duration of the marriage
  6. Their standard of living prior to the divorce
  7. Their conduct, if relevant, to the breakdown of the marriage
  8. An order for the division of assets
  9. Any other factor which in the court`s opinion, should be taken into account.

The discretionary power of the court to make a maintenance award includes the power to make no award at all. Our law favours the ‘clean break’ principle, which basically means that after a divorce the parties should become economically independent of each other as soon as possible.

Harlech-Jones v Harlech-Jones [2012] ZASCA 19

Through a long line of cases dealing exclusively with maintenance pendente lite (awaiting litigation), it has become customary not to award maintenance to a spouse who is living in a permanent relationship with another partner.

As mentioned above, the Supreme Court of Appeal  gave an interesting judgment in the matter of Harlech-Jones v Harlech-Jones [2012] ZASCA 19. The question raised in this matter was inter alia whether it would be against public policy for a man to pay maintenance to his wife while she is living with another man.

The parties, who were married to each other in December 1972, were divorced in January 2011, after many years living apart and many legal battles. In terms of the Divorce Order, the Appellant (the former husband) was ordered to pay the Respondent the sum of R2 000-00 per month as maintenance with effect from 1 February 2011. With leave of the High Court, the Appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal solely against the maintenance order.

By the time the Divorce Order was granted, both parties had formed relationships with other partners, and the Respondent had been living for some three years with another man who fully and unconditionally maintained her.

Relying upon judgments such as Dodo v Dodo 1990 (2) SA 77 (W) at 89G; Carstens v Carstens 1985 (2) SA 351 (SE) at 353F; SP v HP 2009 (5) SA 223 (O) , it was argued that it would be against public policy for a woman to be supported by two men at the same time.

The court was of the opinion that while there are no doubt members of society who would endorse that view, it rather speaks of values from times past and the court was of the opinion that in the modern, more liberal age in which we live, public policy demands that a person who cohabits with another should not for that reason alone, be barred from claiming maintenance from his or her spouse.

However, in light of facts of the present case, where the Respondent was being fully maintained by the man with whom she had been living with for years, the Respondent failed to show that she was entitled to receive maintenance from her former husband.  The Appeal therefore succeeded, and the maintenance order was set aside.

Therefore, if you feel that you are currently paying your ex-partner maintenance which he / she do not deserve, contact your legal representative and take back the money that you worked so hard to obtain!

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Ware liefde, of maklike geld?

Ware liefde, of maklike geld?

A1blDie kwessies wat ons in hierdie artikel hanteer is of ‘n persoon onderhoud kan vra van hul gewese man / vrou as hul al in ‘n nuwe verhouding is en saam die man / vrou bly, by wie hulle reeds finansiele ondersteuning ontvang. Ons sal na regspraak en die Onderhouds Wet 99 van 1998 kyk.

Jou ex-vrou het aanbeweeg en is nou gelukkig saam met ‘n nuwe man. Hulle is in ‘n stabiele, ondersteunende verhouding en haar nuwe maat lyk nie kort van kontant nie.

Almal is gelukkig in hul lewe, so hoekom moet jy onderhoud betaal aan jou ex-vrou?

Die uitspraak van Harlech-Jones v Harlech-Jones [2012]ZASCA 19 het betrekking. Die probleem in hierdie geval is of ‘n man verplig is om onderhoud te betaal aan sy gewese vrou wat betrokke is in ‘n verhouding met ‘n ander man, na die egskeiding.

Die plig van ondersteuning

Geen persoon het ‘n statutêre reg op die tipe onderhoud nie. Die taal in die Wet op Egskeiding is duidelik diskresionêr en ‘n ex-eggenoot wat opsoek is na ‘n toekenning vir onderhoud het geen reg as sodanig nie. Die Hof sal die volgende faktore in ag neem voordat die besluit geneem kan word vir onderhoud:

  1. Die bestaande of verwagte vermoëns van elkeen
  2. Die onderskeie verdienvermoëns van elkeen
  3. Hulle onderskeie behoeftes en verpligtinge
  4. Hul ouderdom
  5. Die tydperk van die huwelik
  6. Hul lewenstandaard voor die egskeiding
  7. Hul optrede, indien relevant, tot die verbrokkeling van die huwelik
  8. ‘n Bevel vir die verdeling van bates
  9. Enige ander faktor wat in die Hof se mening in ag geneem moet word.

Die diskresionêre bevoegdheid van die Hof om ‘n onderhoud toekenning te maak sluit ook in die krag om geen toekenning te maak. Ons reg gunstig die “skoon breek” beginsel, wat basies beteken dat na die egskeiding moet altwee partye so gou as moontlik ekonomies onafhanklik van mekaar af wees.

Harlech-Jones v Harlech-Jones [2012] ZASCA 19

Na aanleiding van menigte sake wat eksklusief  met tussentydse onderhoud handel, het dit gebruiklik geword om nie onderhoud aan ‘n eggenoot wat in ‘n permanente verhouding is met ‘n ander persoon, toe te ken nie.

Soos hierbo genoem, het die Appèlhof ‘n interessante uitspraak gegee in die saak van Harlech-Jones v Harlech-Jones. Die vraag in hierdie saak was, onder andere, of dit teen die openbare beleid sou wees vir ‘n man om onderhoud aan sy ex-vrou te betaal terwyl sy saam met ‘n ander man bly.

Die partye, wat in Desember 1972 getrou het, het in Januarie 2011 geskei. In terme van die finale egskeidingsbevel, moes die Appellant (die gewese man) die Respondent (die gewese vrou) ‘n bedrag van R2 000.00 per maand betaal vir onderhoud van die begin van Februarie 2011 af. Met verlof van die Hooggeregshof, het die Appellant slegs ten opsigte van die onderhoudsbevel geappelleer na die Appèlhof.

Teen die tyd dat die finale egskeidingsbevel toegestaan is, het albei partye ander verhoudings aangeknoop. Die Respondent het saam met haar nuwe maat ingetrek en haar ten volle en onvoorwaardelik finansieel in stand gehou het.

In die uitsprake van Dodo v Dodo 1990 (2) SA 77 (W) op 89G; Carstens v Carstens 1985 (2) SA 351 (SE) op 353F; SP v HP 2009 (5) Sa 223 (0), is dit geargumenteer dat dit teen openbare beleid sou wees vir ‘n vrou om deur twee verskeie mans op dieselfde tyd ondersteun te word.

Die Hof was van mening dat terwyl daar geen twyfel was dat lede van die gemeenskap daardie uitkyk sal endosseer nie, verwys dit eerder na waardes van die verlede, en die Hof was van mening dat in die moderne, meer liberale era waarin ons leef, vereis openbare beleid dat ‘n persoon wat saam met ‘n ander maat lewe, nie vir daardie rede alleen verbied moet word om onderhoud te eis van sy of haar eggenoot nie.

In die lig van die feite van die huidige saak, waar die Respondent deur haar nuwe maat onderhou word en vir jare in ‘n permanente verhouding is met hom, het die Respondent versuim om te wys dat sy op onderhoud van haar ex-man geregtig is. Die Appèl het dus geslaag, en die onderhoudsbevel was tersyde gestel.

Daarom, as jy voel dat jy tans onderhoud betaal wat jy dink jou gewese man / vrou nie verdien nie, kontak jou regsverteenwoordiger en neem terug die geld wat aan jou behoort waarvoor jy so hard gewerk het!

Hierdie is ‘n algemene inligtingstuk en moet gevolglik nie as regs- of ander professionele advies benut word nie. Geen aanspreeklikheid kan aanvaar word vir enige foute of weglatings of enige skade of verlies wat volg uit die gebruik van enige inligting hierin vervat nie. Kontak altyd u regsadviseur vir spesifieke en toegepaste advies.

Rule 43 applications

Rule 43 applications

A2blDivorce proceedings can take years to come to conclusion and this leaves certain issues unresolved until such a time. A Rule 43 Application can be used to find a comparatively speedy interim solution to important issues such as maintenance and access to minor children.

If you are involved in an opposed divorce action you may wait years before getting your final divorce order. This means that your legal costs may end up sky high and your spouse may not be contributing to living costs of yourself or your children.

There may also be issues with regard to custody of minor children or access to minor children that will eventually be resolved at the completion of the divorce proceedings for which you need to make interim arrangements. This is particularly helpful where one parent is preventing the other from having access to the minor children born out of the relationship. Luckily there is a way of dealing with these issues while you are still engaged in divorce proceedings.

A Rule 43 Application allows you to claim for a contribution towards the costs of a pending matrimonial action, for maintenance pendente lite (awaiting litigation), for interim custody of any child and for interim access to any child. [1] In order to do this you need to deliver a sworn statement which sets out what you are claiming for as well as the grounds upon which you are relying. A notice must also be attached to this sworn statement which you’ll find in the Uniform Rules of Court. These documents will usually be drafted by your attorneys after having consulted with you. Remember that a sworn statement must be signed before a commissioner of oaths. Make sure to read through this document thoroughly to make sure that it is complete and accurate before you sign it.[2]

A Rule 43 Application must be served by the sheriff and the Respondent must deliver a sworn reply to the sworn statement within 10 court days of receiving it. If the Respondent does not reply then he shall be barred from doing so. If the Respondent does reply then the Registrar must as soon as possible thereafter bring the matter before the High Court for summary hearing on 10 days notice to the parties.[3]

The High Court may then make an order that it deems as just or it may dismiss the Application if they can see from the sworn statements that the claims have no proper grounds or for any other reason that they deem to be just and fair. The court also has the power to change its decision through the same procedure where there has been a material change in the circumstances of either party or the circumstances of a child takes place or where the contribution towards costs proves to be inadequate.[4]

If you are involved in opposed Divorce proceedings and are struggling with any of the abovementioned issues then consider mentioning your interest in making an Application to the High Court in terms of Rule 43 to your legal representation if this remedy hasn’t been brought to your attention yet. It is an effective remedy to getting relief in what can be a long and drawn out process and decreases the chances of one party being prejudiced where they do not have the finances to fund the legal costs of the divorce proceedings.

References

  • Rule 43 of the Uniform Rules of Court: Rules Regulating the Conduct of the Proceedings of the Several Provincial and Local Divisions of the High Court of South Africa

[1] Rule 43(1)(a) – (c) of the Uniform Rules of Court: Rules Regulating the Conduct of the Proceedings of the Several Provincial and Local Divisions of the High Court of South Africa

[2] Rule 43(2) of the Uniform Rules of Court

[3] Rule 43(3) & (4) of the Uniform Rules of Court

[4] Rule 43(5) & (6) of the Uniform Rules of Court

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Reël 43 aansoeke

Reël 43 aansoeke

A2blEgskeiding sake kan jare neem om tot ‘n gevolgtrekking te kom en dit laat sekere kwessiesonopgelos tot so ‘n tyd. Reël 43 aansoeke kan gebruik word om ‘n relatiewe vinnige tussentydse oplossing vir belangrike kwessies soos onderhoud en toegang tot die minderjarige kinders te vind.

As jy in ‘n bestrede egskeiding aksie betrokke is kan jy jare wag voordat jy jou Finale Egskeidingsbevel gaan kry. Dit beteken dat jou regskostes hemelshoog kan wees en dat jou eggenoot dalk nie tot jou lewenskostes of die lewenskostes van jou kinders bydra nie. Daar kan ook probleme met betrekkeing tot die bewaring van, of toegang tot, die minderjarige kinders wees wat uiteindelik opgelos sal word teen die finaliseering van die egskeiding. Tussentydse reëlings moet gemaak word ten opsigte van die bogenoemde kwessies. Hierdie tussentydse reëlings is veral nuttig waar een ouer verhoed dat die ander toegang tot die minderjarige kinders wat uit die verhouding gebore is mag hê. Gelukkig is daar ‘n manier om hierdie probleme te hanteer terwyl jy nog met die egskeidings aksie besig is.

‘n Reël 43 aansoek kan gebruik word om vir ‘n bydra tot die regskostes van die egskeidings aksie te eis, vir onderhoud pendent lite (hangende litigasie), vir ‘n tussentydse bewaring van ‘n minderjarige kind en vir tussentydse toegang tot ‘n minderjarige kind.[1] Om hierdie te doen moet jy ‘n beëdigde verklaring opstel waarin jy die gronde waarop jy die aansoek bring uiteensit. ‘n Kennisgewing moet by die beëdigde verklaring aangeheg word. Hierdie dokumente sal gewoonlik deur jou prokureurs opgestel word nadat hulle met jou gekonsulteer het. Onthou dat ‘n beëdigde verklaring moet voor ‘n kommissaris van ede geteken word. Maak seker om deeglik deur hierdie dokument deur te lees om seker te maak dat dit volledig en akkuraat is voordat jy dit teken.[2]

‘n Reël 43 aansoek moet deur die balju beteken word en die respondent moet ‘n beëdigde antwoord binne 10 hof dae van ontvangs van die beëdigde verklaring gee. As die respondent nie antwoord nie dan sal hy onder belet om dit te doen geplaas word. As die respondent wel sy beëdigde antwoord gelewer het moet die Griffier so gou as moontlik die saak voor die Hoogeregshof bring vir summiere aanhoring op 10 dae kennisgewing aan die partye.[3]

Die hof mag dan ‘n bevel maak wat dit as billik ag, of dit kan die aansoek van die hand wysas die hof van die verklarings kan sien dat die eise nie behoorlike gronde het nie of vir enige ander rede wat dit as billik ag.Die hof het ook die mag om hul besluite te verander deur dieselfde prosedures waar daar ‘n wesenlike verandering in die omstandighede van een van die partye was of in die omstandighede van ‘n minderjarige kind is of waar die bydra tot regskostes onvoldoende is.[4]

As jy in ‘n bestrede edskeiding betrokke is en sukkel met een van die bogenoemde probleme dan moet jy dit oorweeg om jou regsverteenvoordiger oor die Reël 43 aansoek te vra as hul jou nog nie oor hierdie remedie ingelig het nie. Dit is ‘n effektiewe remedie om verligting te kry in wat ‘n lang en uitgetreke proses kan wees en verminder die kanse dat een party benadeel is waar hulle nie die finansies het om die regskostes van die egskeiding te betaal nie.

Verwysings

  • Reël 43 van die “Uniform Rules of Court: Rules Regulating the Conduct of the Proceedings of the Several Provincial and Local Divisions of the High Court of South Africa”

[1] Rule 43(1)(a) – (c) of the Uniform Rules of Court: Rules Regulating the Conduct of the Proceedings of the Several Provincial and Local Divisions of the High Court of South Africa

[2] Rule 43(2) of the Uniform Rules of Court

[3] Rule 43(3) & (4) of the Uniform Rules of Court

[4] Rule 43(5) & (6) of the Uniform Rules of Court

Hierdie is ‘n algemene inligtingstuk en moet gevolglik nie as regs- of ander professionele advies benut word nie. Geen aanspreeklikheid kan aanvaar word vir enige foute of weglatings of enige skade of verlies wat volg uit die gebruik van enige inligting hierin vervat nie. Kontak altyd u regsadviseur vir spesifieke en toegepaste advies.