Heymans v Van Tonder (1) (406/83) [1985] ZASCA 43; [1985] 2 All SA 389 (A) (29 May 1985)

Heymans v Van Tonder (1) (406/83) [1985] ZASCA 43; [1985] 2 All SA 389 (A) (29 May 1985)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that clause 3 of the joint will must be interpreted to mean that the appellant, upon the respondent's remarriage, acquired a vested right to claim half the value of the joint estate. If the appellant was a minor at the time of remarriage, payment would be postponed until he reached majority, with the respondent required to provide security to the satisfaction of the Master. The repeated mention of the appellant's birth date and the appointment of the surviving spouse as guardian indicated the testators' intention to protect their son's interests. The court rejected the respondent's interpretation that allowed indefinite postponement of payment at her...

Citation
[1985] ZASCA 43
Parties
Appellant: Paul Jacobus Heymans; Respondent: Beatrice Aletta van Tonder (born van der Westhuizen, formerly Heymans)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 May 1985
Case Number
406/83
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Judgment of the Court a Quo on the Third Issue
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs. The order of the court a quo is amended to require the respondent to pay half the value of the estate assets as at the date of her remarriage to the appellant.
Judges
RABIE HR, JANSEN AR, JOUBERT AR, VILJOEN AR, HEFER AR
Legal Topics
Joint Will Interpretation, Fideicommissum, Testamentary Disposition, Minority and Majority, Inheritance Rights
Family and Children Land and Property Joint Will Interpretation Fideicommissum Testamentary Disposition Minority and Majority Inheritance Rights

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

Parties

Paul Jacobus Heymans

Appellant

Beatrice Aletta van Tonder (born van der Westhuizen, formerly Heymans)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Judgment of the Court a Quo on the Third Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What assets constitute the joint estate to which the appellant is entitled under the joint will?
  2. 2 On which date should the value of the estate assets be determined: the date of the testator's death or the date of the surviving spouse's remarriage?
  3. 3 Is the respondent obliged to pay half the value of the estate assets to the appellant, or may she provide security instead, and must such security bear interest?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that clause 3 of the joint will must be interpreted to mean that the appellant, upon the respondent's remarriage, acquired a vested right to claim half the value of the joint estate. If the appellant was a minor at the time of remarriage, payment would be postponed until he reached majority, with the respondent required to provide security to the satisfaction of the Master. The repeated mention of the appellant's birth date and the appointment of the surviving spouse as guardian indicated the testators' intention to protect their son's interests. The court rejected the respondent's interpretation that allowed indefinite postponement of payment at her...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs. The order of the court a quo is amended to require the respondent to pay half the value of the estate assets as at the date of her remarriage to the appellant.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is amended: the respondent is obliged to pay half the value of the assets as at the date of her remarriage on 26 May 1981 to the appellant.