Bormann v Bormann (13601/2011) [2012] ZAWCHC 101 (2 February 2012)

Bormann v Bormann (13601/2011) [2012] ZAWCHC 101 (2 February 2012)

The court found that the defendant had contributed substantially to the plaintiff's estate, both financially and physically, including the initial R200,000 investment towards the purchase of the property, ongoing support of the household, and improvements to the property. The evidence showed that the parties treated their respective estates as joint during the marriage, and the plaintiff benefited equally from the proceeds of property sales and the guest house business. The court rejected the plaintiff's claim of donation due to the absence of a written Deed of Donation and found that the defendant's business failures did not negate his contributions. The defendant was therefore entitled...

Citation
[2012] ZAWCHC 101
Parties
Plaintiff: Dorothea Bormann; Defendant: Erwin Ehrhart Volkmar Bormann
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 February 2012
Case Number
13601/2011
Procedural Posture
Divorce Action / Trial
Outcome
The defendant is entitled to 50% of the nett proceeds of the immovable property registered in the plaintiff's name, less the amount owed to Absa Bank. The plaintiff is ordered to pay 50% of the defendant's taxed or agreed costs. A decree of divorce is granted.
Judges
Saldanha
Legal Topics
Divorce Act Section 7 3, Redistribution Order, Contribution to Estate, Division of Assets, Donation of Property
Family and Children Divorce Act Section 7 3 Redistribution Order Contribution to Estate Division of Assets Donation of Property

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dorothea Bormann

Plaintiff

Erwin Ehrhart Volkmar Bormann

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Divorce Action / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is entitled to a redistribution order under section 7(3) of the Divorce Act.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant contributed directly or indirectly to the maintenance or increase of the plaintiff's estate during the marriage.
  3. 3 Whether the property was donated to the plaintiff by the defendant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant had contributed substantially to the plaintiff's estate, both financially and physically, including the initial R200,000 investment towards the purchase of the property, ongoing support of the household, and improvements to the property. The evidence showed that the parties treated their respective estates as joint during the marriage, and the plaintiff benefited equally from the proceeds of property sales and the guest house business. The court rejected the plaintiff's claim of donation due to the absence of a written Deed of Donation and found that the defendant's business failures did not negate his contributions. The defendant was therefore entitled...

Court Disposition

The defendant is entitled to 50% of the nett proceeds of the immovable property registered in the plaintiff's name, less the amount owed to Absa Bank. The plaintiff is ordered to pay 50% of the defendant's taxed or agreed costs. A decree of divorce is granted.

Orders

  • A decree of divorce is granted between the parties.
  • The defendant is entitled to 50% of the nett proceeds of the remainder of the erf at Hoekwil, George registered in the name of the plaintiff, less the amount owed to Absa Bank.