D M v N M (549/04) [2013] ZAECPEHC 59 (19 November 2013)

D M v N M (549/04) [2013] ZAECPEHC 59 (19 November 2013)

The court held that although the marriage was dissolved in 2001, the joint estate and the parties' rights therein remain undivided until actual division. Fixing the valuation date at the time of dissolution would unfairly advantage the applicant and deprive the respondent of her share in any subsequent increase in value of the estate's assets. The court found no reason to limit the respondent's rights to the value of the property as at the date of dissolution and concluded that a fair and equitable division requires consideration of the current value of the assets at the time of division, not at the date of divorce.

Citation
[2013] ZAECPEHC 59
Parties
Applicant: D M M; Respondent: N P M; Respondent: Craig Todd De Lange
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 November 2013
Case Number
549/04
Procedural Posture
Declaratory Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
N G Beshe
Legal Topics
Division of Joint Estate, Valuation of Assets, Declaratory Relief
Family and Children Civil Procedure Division of Joint Estate Valuation of Assets Declaratory Relief

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D M M

Applicant

N P M

Respondent

Craig Todd De Lange

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Declaratory Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the valuation of the assets of the joint estate be determined as at the date of the divorce decree (4 May 2001).
  2. 2 Does limiting the valuation date to the dissolution of marriage result in an unfair advantage to one party.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that although the marriage was dissolved in 2001, the joint estate and the parties' rights therein remain undivided until actual division. Fixing the valuation date at the time of dissolution would unfairly advantage the applicant and deprive the respondent of her share in any subsequent increase in value of the estate's assets. The court found no reason to limit the respondent's rights to the value of the property as at the date of dissolution and concluded that a fair and equitable division requires consideration of the current value of the assets at the time of division, not at the date of divorce.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.