Cape Town divorce lawyer Bertus Preller writes South Africa’s first Book on Divorce and Separation for the general public, published by Random House Struik

CAPE TOWN, WC, SOUTH AFRICA, August 7, 2013 /EINPresswire.com/ —

Everyone’s Guide to Divorce and Separation by Bertus Preller will help with the following crucial aspects: your rights when you get divorced in South Africa, and the monetary aspects relating to divorce (including the consequences relating to assets and the divisions thereof, spousal maintenance and support, parental rights and responsibilities of children, how to implement a parenting plan, how much child maintenance will likely be required, and how to file for maintenance and child support, the procedures to obtain a protection order when there is domestic violence or abuse, an unmarried father’s rights and how to acquire parental rights and the law on cohabitation, same-sex marriages, and how to draft a proper cohabitation agreement.
In the Foreword of the book, Judge Denis Davis says the following:

“Bertus Preller has filled a very significant gap with this timely book, in that in plain language, he provides a comprehensive guide to the broader community through the thicket of law that now characterises this legal landscape. Having said that, many lawyers, particularly those who do not specialise in the field, will also find great assistance in this work. Early on in the text, Mr Preller makes a vital point – litigation is truly the option of last resort in the event of a matrimonial dispute. The adversarial process which is the manner in which law operates is not at all conducive to a settlement of issues, particularly custody of minor children, which have a long-lasting and vital impact on the lives, not only of the antagonists but also the children who have not, in any way, caused the problem giving rise to the forensic battle. Often in my experience on the Bench, I have wondered how such vicious and counter productive litigation can be allowed to continue. Lawyers will point to clients, whose disappointment in the breakdown of the marriage now powers such adverse feelings to their erstwhile partner, as the core reason for the ‘legal fight to the finish’. Whatever the context, however, it is important that arcane and often incomprehensible legal jargon be made accessible to those affected by the law. In this way, ordinary citizens can ensure that their rights work for them and at the same time they are assisted to grasp fully the implications of the obligations that the law imposes upon them. – Judge Dennis Davis”

The book is on the shelves of all major book stores on and also at Amazon.com

About the Author:

Bertus Preller is a Family and Divorce Law Attorney and Mediator at Bertus Preller & Associates Incoss in Cape Town. He acts in divorce matters across South Africa He matriculated at Grey College, studied at the University of the Free State and the University of Johannesburg and was admitted as an attorney in 1989. He has nearly 25 years of experience in law. He was appointed as a part time mediator and arbitrator in 1996 by the CCMA. He has also been quoted on Family Law issues in various newspapers such as the Sunday Times and Business Times and magazines such as Noseweek, Keur, Living and Loving, Longevity, Woman and Home, Women’s Health, You, Huisgenoot and Fairlady and also appeared on the SABC television show, 3 Talk, Morning Live and on the 5FM Breakfast show with Gareth Cliff. His clients include artists, celebrities, sports people and high net worth individuals. His areas of expertise are Divorce Law, Family Law, Divorce Mediation, Parenting Plans, Parental Responsibilities and Rights, Custody (care and contact) of children, same sex marriages, unmarried fathers rights, child abduction and Hague Convention cases and domestic violence matters and international divorce law. He is also the founder of iDivorce an online uncontested divorce service.

Tel: 021 422 2461

 

Follow Bertus Preller on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/bertuspreller
Follow Bertus Preller on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/divorceattorneys
To visit the book’s official website go to: http://www.divorcelaws.co.za

Divorce Attorney Cape Town
Bertus Preller & Associates Inc.
+27214222461

Advertisements

Is a husband obliged to pay maintenance when his wife lives with another man?

 

A recent judgment concerned the issue whether a husband is obliged to pay maintenance to his former wife, who is involved in a relationship with another man, after divorce. The plaintiff issued summons against the defendant, her husband, during 2003, for a decree of divorce, maintenance for herself and their son and ancillary relief.

The parties had not lived together as man and wife for a continuous period of at least two years prior to the date of the institution of the divorce action. In terms of the provision of s 4(2)(a) of the Divorce Act 70 of 1979 (the Divorce Act), this is proof of the irretrievable break-down of the marriage. The remaining issues were whether the plaintiff is entitled to maintenance, and if so, what such maintenance should be. The defendant’s case in respect of the plaintiff’s entitlement to maintenance was that it is against public policy that a woman should be supported by two men.

The maintenance post-divorce Section 7(1) and (2) of the Act sets out when a court may order the payment of maintenance and the factors that should be taken into account when making such determination.

It provides as follows:

‘7(1) A Court granting a decree of divorce may in accordance with a written agreement between the parties make an order with regard to the division of the assets of the parties or the payment of maintenance by the one party to the other.

(2) In the absence of an order made in terms of subsection (1) with regard to the payment of maintenance by the one party to the other, the Court may, having regard to the existing or prospective means of each of the parties, their respective earning capacities, financial needs and obligations, the age of each of the parties, the duration of the marriage, the standard of living of the parties prior to the divorce, their conduct insofar as it may be relevant to the break-down of the marriage, an order in terms of subsection (3) and any other factor which in the opinion of the court should be taken into account, make an order which the court finds just in respect of the payment of maintenance by the one party to the other for any period until the death or remarriage of the party in whose favour the order is given, whichever event may first occur.’

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

In Drummond v Drummond the Appellate Division agreed with the definition of the phrase ‘living as husband and wife’ as stated by the full bench. The parties agreed that the husband would pay maintenance towards the wife and that maintenance would ‘cease should the plaintiff prove that the defendant was living as man and wife with a third person on a permanent basis’. The said phrase has the following meaning: ‘. . . the main components of a modus vivendi akin to that of husband and wife are, firstly, living under the same roof, secondly, establishing, maintaining and contributing to a joint household, and thirdly maintaining an intimate relationship.’ The plaintiff and S clearly live together as husband and wife according to the said definition.

In Cohen v Cohen the parties determined in a deed of settlement that the maintenance payable by the plaintiff (the husband) would cease if the defendant lived with another man as husband and wife for a certain specified period. This order was varied by a maintenance court in respect of the amounts the husband had to pay towards maintenance. In the maintenance court’s order the condition in respect of the cohabitation was left out. In a subsequent action it was decided that, where the magistrate had left out the said clause, the condition was no longer enforceable as it had been substituted by the maintenance court.

In Carstens v Carstens the wife claimed maintenance pendente lite in a rule 43 application while she lived with another man as husband and wife. Mullins J found: ‘It is in my view against public policy that a woman should be entitled to claim maintenance pendente lite from her husband when she is flagrantly and deliberately living as man and wife with another man. Not only is applicant in the present case living in adultery, but she and her lover are maintaining a joint household complete with the addition of an adulterine child. She has by her conduct accepted the support of Clarkson in lieu of that of her husband. The fact that Clarkson is unable to support her to the extent that she may have been accustomed in her matrimonial home with respondent does not appear to me to affect the position.’

In SP v HP (another rule 43 application) it was found, on the strength of Carstens, that ‘(t)he objection is not so much about the moral turpitude attaching to the illicit cohabitation, but more about the notion of a woman being supported by two men at the same time’.

In the unreported judgment of Qonqo v Qonqo dealing with a rule 43 application for maintenance pendente lite, the court, in spite of the fact that the applicant cohabited with her lover, ordered the respondent to pay maintenance pendente lite. The reason for ordering the payment of maintenance was that there was no proof that the lover supported the applicant in that instance.

It is also clear from the wording of s 7(2) of the Divorce Act that the legislature did not determine that maintenance should cease when the person receiving the maintenance is in a relationship akin to a marriage but only on remarriage. It is usually by way of an agreement between the parties that the additional condition relating to the cessation of payment of maintenance on the cohabitation with a third party is added.

Marriage entails that the parties establish and ‘maintain an intimate relationship for the rest of their lives which they acknowledge obliges them to support one another, to live together and to be faithful to one another’. One of the effects of marriage is the reciprocal duty of support. This duty of support does not exist, in circumstances such as these, if there is no marriage.

In Volks NO v Robinson and Others the proceedings had been initiated by Mrs Robinson who had been a partner in a permanent life partnership with Mr Shandling for a period of 16 years until his death in 2001. The couple had not been married, although there was no legal obstacle to their marriage. Following the death of Shandling, Robinson submitted a claim for maintenance against his deceased estate. The executor of the estate, Volks, rejected her claim because she was not ‘a survivor’ as contemplated by the Act. Skweyiya J said at paras 55 – 56: ‘Mrs Robinson never married the late Mr Shandling. There is a fundamental difference between her position and spouses or survivors who are predeceased by their husbands. Her relationship with Mr Shandling is one in which each was free to continue or not, and from which each was free to withdraw at will, without obligation and without legal or other formalities. There are a wide range of legal privileges and obligations that are triggered by the contract of marriage. In a marriage the spouse’s rights are largely fixed by law and not by agreement, unlike in the case of parties who cohabit without being married. The distinction between married and unmarried people cannot be said to be unfair when considered in the larger context of the rights and obligations uniquely attached to marriage. Whilst there is a reciprocal duty of support between married persons, no duty of support arises by operation of law in the case of unmarried cohabitants. The maintenance benefit in section 2(1) of the Act falls within the scope of the maintenance support obligation attached to marriage. The Act applies to persons in respect of whom the deceased person (spouse) would have remained legally liable for maintenance, by operation of law, had he or she not died.’

If regard is had to the decision of Cohen, that it cannot be read into s 7(2) of the Act that the maintenance will cease when the recipient of the maintenance lives as husband and wife with another, as an express agreement to that effect can be amended by the maintenance court. Having regard to the factors that should be taken into account when determining whether the defendant ought to pay maintenance for the plaintiff, in terms of s 7(2) of the Act, the factors mentioned are not exclusive.

When taking into consideration the factors mentioned in s 7(2) of the Act to determine whether the defendant is liable to pay maintenance the following emerge:

(a) The existing and prospective means of each of the parties and the parties’ respective earning capacities.

(b) The financial needs and obligations of the parties. It is clear that neither of the parties can live lavishly, but they are not destitute.

(c) The age of the parties.

(d) The duration of the marriage.

(e) The standard of living of the parties prior to the divorce.

(f) The conduct of the defendant insofar as it may be relevant to the breakdown of the marriage.

The facts of this matter differed materially from Carstens; SP v HP; and Qonqo. It is immaterial whether the defendant was unable to support the plaintiff and their son, or whether he was merely unwilling to do so. Other legislation also makes it clear that the legislature envisaged that a man can be supported by two women. In terms of the provisions s 8(4) of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998, a court dissolving a customary marriage has the powers contemplated in ss 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Act. This has the effect that with polygamous customary marriages a husband will have the right to be supported by more than one wife, post-divorce, if circumstances demand it. Although it might have been a concept that was unacceptable in a previous dispensation, the concept is not unacceptable today. The court was of of the opinion that in the circumstances of this case it could not be said that it is against public policy that the defendant should be liable to pay maintenance to the plaintiff; there is no legislative prohibition and the court found that there was no general public policy to that effect or moral prohibition.

Divorce Settlement Agreements – can they be varied without a formal court application?

It happens frequently that the circumstances change years after a divorce Settlement Agreement was concluded. For example, as in the case of GF v SH and Others 2011 (3) SA 25 (GNP). In this case, the ex  husband and ex wife agreed amongst themselves with the intervention of a mediator that their children would spend more time at the ex husband’s house and adopted a shared parenting approach. Necessarily the new arrangement had a bearing on the maintenance that the ex husband paid to his ex wife for the children as the children spent more time in the ex husband’s care. The mediated agreement was never signed between the parties, or the original Settlement Agreement varied, but the ex husband paid the reduced maintenance. After some time the wife, probably acting out of scorn issued a warrant of execution for the non payment of maintenance as per the original court order. The facts appear below.

In terms of the settlement agreement custody of the minor children was awarded to the wife, subject to the applicant’s reasonable rights of access. In addition the settlement agreement provided that the applicant was to pay maintenance at the rate of R5000 per month per child, escalating annually at the consumer price index rate. In addition the applicant was to pay for all the educational and medical expenses incurred in respect of the minor children.

Following the divorce, the parties appeared to have had ongoing problems and disputes that related to the payment of maintenance, timeousness and the adequacy of such payments, as well as issues relevant to the parenting of the children, including decisions related to their upbringing and well being.

On 15 April 2010 the wife caused a warrant of execution in the sum of R303 154,62, plus interest and costs, to be issued at court for arrear maintenance and non-compliance with their divorce order. Following the issuing of the warrant the wife attached certain goods from the home of the ex husband and belonging to him.

The ex husband’s case was based on the fact that changes were made by himself and the wife to the residency arrangements in respect of the minor children, which changes became operative from March 2008 until about June 2009 and as such his liability to pay the maintenance provided for in the court order of 27 August 2002 had been varied by agreement between himself and the wife. He further contended that, in terms of the change of residency arrangements reached in March 2008, the parties agreed to have the minor children with them for alternate weeks. In addition there was a further mediated agreement with regard to a new payment regime, insofar as it related to the payment of maintenance, in terms of which regime the applicant would not be required to pay any maintenance directly to the wife, but instead would cover all expenses incurred in respect of the maintenance of the minor children and make such payments directly to third parties or, in appropriate instances, to service providers and the children. In this regard it appeared that the parties were assisted by one Charles Cohen, a mediator with expertise in the area of family law.

The wife’s contention was that even though there may have been changes to the residency arrangements insofar as these related to the minor children, it did not absolve the husband from complying with the express provisions of the court order and settlement agreement of 27 August 2002 relating to maintenance payments. In this regard it was the wife’s stance that since the written agreement of settlement provided that ‘save for the above, the provisions of this agreement shall not be capable of being varied (save by a court of competent jurisdiction), amended, added to, supplemented, novated or cancelled unless this is contained in writing and signed by both parties’, any oral or informal arrangement was of no force or effect and not binding on the parties. Alternatively the wife contended that even if there was a variation, it only applied in respect of a trial period from August 2008 to November 2008, and that at best her ex husband would be absolved from paying maintenance for three months (August 2008 to October 2008), and the warrant of execution, if incorrectly issued, was incorrect to that extent, and that extent only.

The agreement was never signed by the parties and the question that the court had to pronounce was whether a Settlement Agreement in a divorce action could be varied by mutual agreement, without resorting to court to vary the Agreement formally.

The principle of non-variation of a written agreement in the context of a non-variation-except-in-writing clause was firmly established in the matter of Shifren and Others v SA Sentrale Ko-op Graanmaatskappy Bpk 1964 (2) SA 343 (O). The stance, which essentially proceeds from the premise that any attempt to agree informally to vary a contract containing a non-variation clause, except in writing, must fail, was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Brisley v Drostky 2002 (4) SA 1 (SCA) (2002 (12) BCLR 1229; [2002] 3 All SA 363). The court however found that there must be instances where public policy may justify a departure from the Shifren principle in the area of family law. Without suggesting that such departure should be easily justified or readily countenanced, there must be due regard to the context within which parenting takes place, and within which decisions that may on the face of it vary an express obligation, are arrived at to attain some other socially desirable objective — the best interests of the child. In all the circumstances the demands and the consideration of public policy, in the context of ensuring the development of family law, that are consistent with the values of the Constitution, including the values of equality and non-discrimination, as well as ensuring the advancement of the best interests of the child, would in the court’s view, in appropriate instances and where a proper case is made out, certainly justify a departure from what has become known as the Shifren principle.

The court further noted that if indeed the Shifren principle were entrenched and did not apply in the context of family law, it may well have the effect of achieving all kinds of unintended consequences that may well militate against the development of a public policy consistent with the norms and values of our Constitution. In particular, a strict adherence to those principles may well mean that parents become saddled with a disproportionate share of their responsibility in respect of the maintenance and upbringing of a minor child. It may well have the effect of restricting the ability of parents to do that which the best interests of the child demand, as opposed to that which they are obliged to do in terms of an agreement of settlement, which terms and provisions may well not have kept in touch with the changing times and developments relevant to the context.

From the above it is clear that a Settlement Agreement in a divorce, that was not varied by a formal application to court, may be varied by agreement between the parties, without formally applying to the court to vary such order. It is however of utmost importance that agreements that vary an existing Settlement Agreement be reduced to writing and signed by both parties.

About the Author

Bertus Preller is a Divorce and Family Law Attorney in Cape Town and has more than 20 years experience in most sectors of the law and 13 years as a practicing attorney. He specializes in Family law and Divorce Law at Abrahams and Gross Attorneys Inc. in Cape Town. Bertus is also the Family Law expert on Health24.com and on the expert panel of Law24.com and is frequently quoted on Family Law issues in newspapers such as the Sunday Times and Business Times. His areas of expertise are Divorce Law, Family Law, Divorce Mediation, Parenting Plans, Parental Responsibilities and Rights, Custody (care and contact) of children, same sex marriages, unmarried fathers rights, domestic violence matters, international divorce law, digital rights, media law and criminal law.

Cohabitation and Living Together

Gone are the days of “single” or “married”. You only have to look at Facebook’s relationship declaration options to know that today’s partnerships come in all shapes and sizes. But what are the financial risks of being involved in a long-term relationship that is not formally recognized as a marriage?

Patterns of marriage, divorce and cohabiting without marriage had been changing for years. The incidences of domestic partnerships are growing throughout the world, according to the 1996 census, 1.3million people described themselves as living with a partner. When the 2001 census came around, this figure had almost doubled to nearly 2.4million. Many people believe that, if they live together for some time, the relationship will be recognized by the state, and there will be legal rights, duties and protection. But there was no such thing as common-law marriage – because the concept has been abolished worldwide. The time a couple spend living together does not translate into a default marriage. The consequence is that, at the dissolution of the relationship, the assets or any obligations are determined or distributed on a basis of the arrangement that parties used during their relationship.

Domestic partnerships were never prohibited in South African law – but neither did they enjoy any noteworthy recognition or protection. In SA, marriage laws traditionally provided parties with a variety of legal protections. These laws governed what happened to the property of the parties during the marriage and on dissolution, either by divorce or death, and also meant that certain benefits were automatically acquired, such as membership of medical aid funds, pension funds, etc. Married spouses also had a reciprocal duty of support under the common law. South African courts had occasionally helped couples by deciding that an express or implied universal partnership existed, but this was usually difficult to prove. The only way to be protected in our law is to enter into a cohabitation agreement. Such an agreement clarifies the expectations of the partners and also serves as an early warning of future problems.

A cohabitation agreement will determine what would happen to the property and assets of the couple if they should decide to separate. The agreement is, however, not enforceable in so far as third parties are concerned.

However, in terms of the 2005 Children’s Act, the parents of children born out of wedlock had a duty to maintain their offspring, irrespective of the living arrangements. Basically a cohabitation agreement regulates rights and duties between the partners. It could almost be compared to an antenuptial contract entered into prior to the conclusion of a civil marriage. The agreement can provide for the division and distribution of assets upon dissolution: for instance, the formal agreement may set out the rights and obligations towards each other; the respective financial contributions to the joint home; clarify arrangements regarding ownership of property that they may purchase jointly and the division of their jointly owned assets should they separate.

An agreement such as this will be legally binding as long as it contains no provisions that are immoral or illegal. If there is no agreement on the dissolution of a domestic partnership agreement, a party would only be entitled to retain those assets which he or she has purchased and owns and further would be entitled to share in the assets proportionately in terms of the contribution which they have made to the partnership. However, problems arose if a partner tried to enforce a domestic partnership agreement if the partner being sued was married to someone else. It has been argued that in such cases domestic partnership agreements violate public policy to the extent that they impair the community of property rights (where applicable) of the lawful married spouse.

The Domestic Partnerships Bill was still being formulated, and it wasn’t clear how it would be implemented. In the current constitutional dispensation it is unlikely that a partner will be left in despair, taking into account the Domestic Partnerships Bill. My advice would be for cohabiting couples to enter into a contract – a written partnership agreement that states exactly what will happen in the event of death or a split, protecting their rights and outlining their obligations. For example, when it comes to the ownership of property, the contract should state what happens to ownership of the property (such as one spouse buying out the other) or payments in the event of death or a split. Putting any relationship into writing is always helpful, even if it’s just adding someone on your medical aid as a dependant. “Having said that, in the event of death, having a will is always the best idea. Out of the bounds of a legally recognised marriage there is no intestate succession – meaning there is no automatic participation in the estate to make sure the other partner is looked after. Joint accounts never a good idea Money is one of the most important matters a couple needs to resolve when contemplating living together or marriage. One issue that often comes up in these kinds of discussions is whether to have a joint bank account. In many ways, this can seem like an appealing option. However, most financial experts don’t recommend having a joint account at all.

One never encourage a joint account because whether you are married or living together, you both need to grow your assets and get a good credit rating. Having a joint account invariably makes it difficult for one of the partners to do so. Besides, a joint bank account puts one partner at great risk in the event of a break-up, death or financial difficulties. There is no joint bank account with two equal account holders. A ‘joint’ account is actually an account in one person’s name, to which the other person is a signatory. This causes a number of complications for that signatory. The most important of these is that without a bank account in your name, you will have no credit record at the bank – which makes it difficult to get credit at shops, open a cellphone account or apply for a loan. In the event of a break-up, the joint account could be emptied by one partner or the person in whose name the bank account is held could remove the second signatory. If one partner dies, banks tend to freeze the account until the estate is resolved – leaving the signatory partner with no access to the funds for an extended time. One should advise couples to split responsibility for monthly expenses, or open an account for the household into which both pay a portion of their salaries for general expenses.

Who gets your pension? There are typically two types of benefits payable to “spouses”. Firstly pensions, which are payable to those who qualify as spouses – and that would depend on how each fund defines an ‘eligible spouse’: people must check the fund rules to see if their partner/spouse would qualify. Fund rules may stipulate that you must be married to the same person at date of retirement and date of death for them to qualify for a spouse’s pension. This prevents so-called ‘death-bed marriages’ where a pensioner marries someone much younger than them after they have already retired – and on their death the fund realises that there is a much younger spouse to whom they have a liability to pay a pension for many years.

The second benefit type is the typical fund benefit (fund credit or share of fund) plus an insured multiple of a salary (three times annual salary, for example). This is allocated by the trustees, to your dependants and nominees. A dependant includes a spouse; the Pension Funds Act defines a spouse as a person who is the permanent life partner or spouse or civil union partner of a member in accordance with the Marriage Act, Recognition of Customary Marriages Act, Civil Union Act or the tenets of a religion. A very wide definition. To ensure that no partner is overlooked, the pension fund member should always nominate a beneficiary in the relevant form to help the trustees – although trustees are not absolutely bound to follow that nomination. Unfortunately, when it comes to death and money such decisions by fund trustees are often contested.

Here is a very basic Cohabitation Agreement:

Cohabitation Agreement

The following form is intended for illustrative purposes only. You and your attorney can use this sample as a guide in drafting a cohabitation agreement that best protects your interests and complies with the laws in effect where you live.

Why do I need a Cohabitation Agreement?

A Cohabitation Agreement sets out the financial terms of a couple’s relationship, and provides protection for the parties upon death, or should the relationship fail. 

Who should use a Cohabitation Agreement?

Any unmarried couple in a relationship and living with each other could find this agreement useful.

Also known as:

  • Conditions of Cohabitation
  • Cohabitation Contract

It is advisable that you contact an attorney in regard to drafting such an agreement.

COHABITATION AGREEMENT

Between

(The 1st Party)

and

(The 2nd Party)

PREAMBLE

WHEREAS

1.  The parties are currently living together in a domestic partnership and intend to continue living together in this arrangement;

2.  The parties wish to define their respective proprietary rights and liabilities arising from their domestic partnership arrangement;

3.  The parties each acknowledge that they enter into this agreement voluntarily, without any duress or undue influence, and that each has had the opportunity to consult with an attorney of his/her choice;

 

 

THE PARTIES AGREE:

 

1.         Marital Status

The joint residency of the parties shall in no way render the parties married in any way, whether by operation of common law or any other law.

2.         The Agreement

2.1       This Agreement consists solely of the mutual promises contained herein and the mutual promises of each party to act as the living companion and partner to the other.

2.2       This Agreement fully contemplates and compensates any and all services provided by either party for the benefit of the other during the course of their joint residency. The furnishing of sexual services shall in no way be construed as consideration for this Agreement.

3.         Disclosure of Current Financial Status

Each party has fully and completely, to the best of his/her knowledge, disclosed to the other party his/her current financial condition including all assets and liabilities. Each party has attached a balance sheet to this agreement indicating his/her current assets and liabilities with the understanding that this balance sheet reflects his/her current financial status to the best of his/her ability.

4.         Division of Living Expenses

Necessary and jointly approved living expenses shall be divided between the parties as below:

4.1       The 1st Party shall contribute _____________ percent ( ____%) per month;

4.2       The 2nd Party shall contribute _____________ percent ( ____%) per month.

The parties shall contribute their monthly pro rata contributions into the joint savings/current account of the parties. Any property purchased using funds in this account shall be considered to be the joint property of the parties and owned according to the respective party’s percentage of contribution as stated above. Either party may draw upon this checking account.

5.         Separate Property

The following properties shall be kept by the parties as the separate property of the recipient and the said properties shall not be subject to division at the termination of this Agreement:

5.1       All and any property, real or personal, owned by a specific party at the date of execution of this Agreement;

5.2       Individual gifts, bequests or inheritances acquired before or after the execution of this Agreement;

5.3       Individual earnings, salary or wages acquired before or after the execution of this Agreement;

5.4       All income or proceeds derived from the aforementioned properties.

6.         Commingling of Property

All commingled property shall be presumed to be joint property of the parties unless otherwise agreed.

7.         Joint Property

All property acquired by the parties after the date of execution of this Agreement and before the termination of this Agreement and procured jointly with joint resources and funds shall be considered joint property of the parties with each party possessing his/her aforementioned percentage of ownership.

8.         Division of Property upon Termination

Upon termination of this Agreement or termination of the joint residency, all jointly owned property shall be divided among the parties according to their pro rata share listed above.  If the parties are unable to agree on the appropriate division of joint property, they may appoint an independent and mutually agreed upon Third-party to act as Appraiser.  The Appraiser shall divide the property among the parties according to his/her pro rata share.

9.         Duty of Good Faith and Confidentiality

9.1       This Agreement creates a fiduciary relationship between the parties in which each party agrees to act with the utmost of good faith and fair dealing toward the other in the management of their joint property and in all other aspects of this Agreement.

9.2       Without obtaining a parties’ written consent in advance, a party shall not directly or indirectly publish, or cause to be published, any diary, memoir, letter, story, photograph, interview, article, essay, account, or description or depiction of any kind whatsoever, whether fictionalised or not, concerning the relationship or any other aspect of a parties’ personal, business or financial affairs, or assist or provide information to others in connection with the publication or dissemination of any such material or excerpts thereof.

10.       Legal Names of Parties

Each party shall retain his/her legal name, including surname, as printed and signed in this Agreement.

 

11.       Duration of Agreement

This Agreement shall become effective at the date of execution and shall remain in effect until termination. Termination shall be effected by written notice by either party, cessation of the joint residency by either party or death of either party.  Either party may terminate this Agreement unilaterally at any time.

12.       Death of Party

Upon the death of either party, the surviving party waives all rights to support by the deceased party.

13.       Complete Agreement

It is the intent of the parties that this Agreement be the full and complete agreement between the parties regarding their joint residency.  No variation of this agreement shall be of force or effect unless reduced to writing and signed by both parties.

14.       Severability of Provisions

Should any paragraph or provision of this Agreement be held invalid, void, or otherwise unenforceable, it is the intent of the parties that the remaining portions shall nevertheless continue in full force and effect without impairment.

15.       Governing Law

This Agreement shall be governed by, interpreted and construed in accordance with the laws of the Republic of South Africa.

DATED at                                     this                  day of                                    201_

AS WITNESSES:

 

1.

 

2.

 

DATED at                                     this                  day of                                    201_

AS WITNESSES:

 

1.

 

2.

About the author:

Bertus Preller is a Divorce and Family Law Attorney in Cape Town and has more than 20 years experience in most sectors of the law and 13 years as a practicing attorney. He specializes in Family law and Divorce Law at Abrahams and Gross Attorneys Inc. in Cape Town. Bertus is also the Family Law expert on Health24.com and on the expert panel of Law24.com and is frequently quoted on Family Law issues in newspapers such as the Sunday Times and Business Times. His areas of expertise are Divorce Law, Family Law, Divorce Mediation, Parenting Plans, Parental Responsibilities and Rights, Custody (care and contact) of children, same sex marriages, unmarried fathers rights, domestic violence matters, international divorce law, digital rights, media law and criminal law.

Email: info@divorceattorney.co.za

Seven Big Post-Divorce Money Mistakes Women Make

The Seven Big Post-Divorce Money Mistakes Women Make

Breaking up is not only hard to do, it can be brutal on your finances.

Legal fees and creating and running two households from one are just the initial costs of separation process. And while some expenditure is necessary, others can be emotionally charged and careless and can lead to serious debt.

Here are seven common ways divorced couples can get into big financial trouble after a split:

1.            Ignorance

While a divorce Settlement Agreement may specify who is to pay what account, it carries little weight with creditors.

The most frequent mistake of all after divorce is assuming that because the ex spouse has been the one ordered to pay back the debt in the divorce, they are off the hook for it.  Most people do not realise that courts do not have the authority to make creditors abide by a judge’s orders in divorce. A spouse may have recourse to re-claim a debt from the other spouse who assumed the debt, but it does not nullify liability towards the creditor where the debt was a joint debt of the parties.

2.         Delusion

If you relied on the other person’s income during the marriage, your cash flow may take a serious dip. As it constricts, so must your budget. Unfortunately, many who are accustomed to abundance deny reality and continue to shop till they drop. The bills, however, wind up on the cards.

The most important thing most parents want is for their child’s lifestyle to continue, be conscious of your current circumstances and spend accordingly.

3.         Neglect

Own a home together? Make sure that your share in the property is transferred, especially if you are married in community of property. There are many cases where one party was awarded the other spouse’s share in the home, but neglected to transfer it. If your ex lands in financial trouble after divorce, creditors may still attach his/her share in the property, so make sure it is transferred.

4.         Revenge.

Wanting to ruin your ex by charging up the cards is a frequent response to betrayal; it is what one call ‘the saboteur spouse’. Squelch this desire, though. While big balances may result in the hoped-for fury, you too could be held responsible for the balance.

5.         Beauty

If you’ve been dumped for a younger model and want to make yourself feel better by looking better with the hope of attracting a new mate, you may be considering splurging on a beautification procedure.

Be careful, though it usually translates into little more than added liabilities. Some people spend thousands on plastic surgery after discovering the husband’s affair. It may be money that one could not afford to spend, it was more important to paying off credit cards. Worse, those nips and tucks normally has no positive impact on the soon-to-be ex. Delay any major decisions — financial and cosmetic — for at least six months to a year after a divorce is finalized.

6.         Competition

What happens when one parent can afford more and better things for the children post-separation? The less wealthy partner sometimes attempts to keep up with or even outdo the other.

Oftentimes, there is a pre-divorce battle for the children’s love and affection by purchasing gifts for kids or taking them to concerts or cruises in order to gain their affection over the other spouse. Question your motivation for purchasing certain items for the kids. If it’s to prove your love, stash the cards.

7.         New love

Getting sucked into a fresh romance when a marriage falls apart can be seductive. It can also be pricey. One of the most common post-divorce credit issues are loans people make for new partners. In some cases, it may be thousands to fix a broken car, but in others, it is tens of thousands to help a new lover with a business, or hundreds of thousands to put towards an ‘investment’ that was really a scam. Avoid lending or giving money to anyone for at least a year after divorce.

Almost everyone has regrets about a broken relationship. Don’t make needless, emotion-based liabilities one of them. Divorce your mate, not common sense.

About the author:

Bertus Preller is a Divorce and Family Law Attorney based in Cape Town and has more than 20 years experience in most sectors of the law and 13 years as a practicing attorney. He specializes in Family law and Divorce Law at Abrahams and Gross Attorneys Inc. and litigates in divorce matters across the country. He is also the Family Law expert on Health24.com and on the expert panel of Law24.com and is frequently quoted on Family Law issues in newspapers such as the Sunday Times and Business Times. His clients include celebrities, actors and actresses, sportsmen and sportswomen, television presenters and various high net worth individuals.  His areas of expertise are Divorce Law, Family Law, International Divorce Law, Divorce Mediation, Parenting Plans, Parental Responsibilities and Rights, Custody (care and contact) of children, same sex marriages, unmarried fathers rights, domestic violence matters, digital rights, media law and criminal law.

Bertus other passion is technology and he also co-pioneered the development of technology in which the first book in the world was delivered to a mobile phone utilizing sms and java technology and also advised a number of South African book publishers on the Google Book settlement class action and negotiated contracts with the likes of Google and Amazon.com.

Divorce Attorney now also consulting in Stellenbosch

Bertus Preller a specialist Divorce and Family Law Attorney at Abrahams and Gross Attorneys Inc. in Cape Town, will now be consulting on a weekly basis in Stellenbosch. Due to demand from clients in the Stellenbosch, Paarl and Somerset West areas, Bertus will be consulting once a week in Stellenbosch on divorce and family law matters.

Bertus is the Family Law expert on Health24.com and on the expert panel of Law24.com and is frequently quoted on Family Law issues in newspapers such as the Sunday Times and Business Times. He has handled numerous high profile divorce matters of sportsmen, celebrities, actors and high net worth individuals. His areas of expertise are Divorce Law, Family Law, Divorce Mediation, Parenting Plans, Parental Responsibilities and Rights, Custody (care and contact) of children, same sex marriages, unmarried fathers rights, domestic violence matters, international divorce law, digital rights, media law and criminal law.

Bertus matriculated at Grey College in Bloemfontein and graduated from the University of the Orange Free State in 1988 (cum laude – Criminal Procedure) and followed this up with post graduate studies at the University of Johannesburg, he articled at Symington & De Kok Attorneys in Bloemfontein.

For further enquiries contact:

Melanie Radcliffe on 021 422 13232 or email info@divorceattorney.co.za

Shared Parenting

What is Shared Parenting?

“An arrangement whereby children freely enjoy the love and nurture of both parents and their wider family following separation or divorce …it does mean that sufficient time is spent with each parent for the child to view each parent as a parent rather than an aunty or uncle.”

(ASP definition of Shared Parenting as adopted by CAFCASS in 2004)

Shared parenting is an arrangement after divorce wherein both parents continue to have a strong positive presence in their children’s lives. Shared parenting entails that a child spend equal or significant amounts of time with each parent.

As a divorce and family law attorney I see a huge shift towards a more collaborative approach between parents to share equal time with their children after divorce.

Shared parenting arrangements may differ to suit various situations. Time between each parent may be split 50/50 or the children may live with one parent for example, four days every week and the rest of the week with another parent.

After divorce, shared parenting is a preferred alternative to asking the children to choose where they want to live. Many children prefer shared parenting rather than the traditional arrangements. With shared parenting, the children still has the chance to have a meaningful relationship with both of their parents.

There are many benefits to shared parenting. It allows a child to have both his/her parents present in his/her life and although the child has to switch between two homes, shared parenting reassures the child that both parents care for them. This arrangement is more beneficial to a child than when they live with only one parent because often the latter creates a distance both physical and emotional between the child and the “absent” parent.

Studies show that children of divorced couples who retain meaningful relationships with each parent are the ones who find it easier to deal with the breakup of their parents. Research also shows shared parenting is possible despite intense conflict between parents if the parents focus on what is best for their children.

Almost half of the children in the U.S. are deprived of the lifelong benefits of two parents who share the parenting throughout the first 18 years of their children’s lives.

The Benefits of Shared Residence and Shared Parenting

  • Removes the need for a child to choose between the parents
  • Allows both parents to love and nurture the child in much the same way as they did prior to parental separation and therefore promotes the continuation of family life
  • The child does not feel rejected by the non-resident parent and does not blame himself
  • Confirms to the child that he still has two parents who love and wish to care for him
  • The child derives emotional and psychological security from having two fully engaged parents
  • The child is no longer brought up to believe that the resident parent is the real, better or main parent and that the non-resident parent is a lesser parent or to be rejected
  • Re-affirms the responsibility of each parent to care and provide for the child
  • Sends a clear message to the resident parent, schools, doctors and the courts that both parents are equal and that all decisions relating to the child should be based on this principle
  • The child is more likely to grow up in a well-adjusted manner
  • Reduces parental hostility as it requires both parents to negotiate and make joint decisions

Bertus Preller is a Divorce and Family Law Attorney in Cape Town and has more than 20 years experience in most sectors of the law and 13 years as a practicing attorney. He specializes in Family law and Divorce Law at Abrahams and Gross Attorneys Inc. in Cape Town. Bertus is also the Family Law expert on Health24.com and on the expert panel of Law24.com and is frequently quoted on Family Law issues in newspapers such as the Sunday Times and Business Times. His areas of expertise are Divorce Law, Family Law, Divorce Mediation, Parenting Plans, Parental Responsibilities and Rights, Custody (care and contact) of children, same sex marriages, unmarried fathers rights, domestic violence matters, international divorce law, digital rights, media law and criminal law.

Bertus Preller

B.Proc; AD Dip L Law

Family Law Attorney

A:1st Floor, 56 Shortmarket Street, Cape Town, 8000

O: +27 (0) 21 422 1323

F: 086 572 8373

C: +27 (0) 83 443 9838

E: bertus@divorceattorney.co.za; W:  www.divorceattorney.co.za; Twitter: www.twitter.com/edivorce;

Facebook: www.facebook.com/divorceattorneys; Skype: divorceattorney