L M v E M (A284/2018) [2019] ZAFSHC 216 (8 August 2019)

L M v E M (A284/2018) [2019] ZAFSHC 216 (8 August 2019)

The appellate court found that the trial court exercised its discretion correctly in granting rehabilitative maintenance for 24 months, considering the respondent's age, unemployment, and entitlement to a share of the pension and accrual. The medical aid order was justified given the respondent's medical history and lack of means, and was limited to reasonable expenses for 24 months. The evidence did not support forfeiture of patrimonial benefits, as both parties had extra-marital relationships and the marriage lasted 23 years, making a 50% accrual share appropriate. The costs order was also upheld, as the trial court properly considered the parties' means and conduct, and relative...

Citation
[2019] ZAFSHC 216
Parties
Appellant: L M; Respondent: E M
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 August 2019
Case Number
A284/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Full Bench Appeal From Single Judge in Divorce Matter
Outcome
The appeal and counter appeal are both dismissed. Each party is to pay their own costs.
Judges
L R Pohl, P E Molitsoane, L B J Moeng
Legal Topics
Divorce Act Maintenance, Rehabilitative Maintenance, Division of Accrual, Medical Aid Obligation, Costs in Divorce, Forfeiture of Patrimonial Benefits
Family and Children Divorce Act Maintenance Rehabilitative Maintenance Division of Accrual Medical Aid Obligation Costs in Divorce Forfeiture of Patrimonial Benefits

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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L M

Appellant

E M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Full Bench Appeal From Single Judge in Divorce Matter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court a quo erred in granting rehabilitative maintenance for a fixed period of 24 months.
  2. 2 Whether the order requiring the appellant to retain the respondent on his medical aid for 24 months was justified.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was entitled to 50% of the appellant's accrued estate or a lesser percentage.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court found that the trial court exercised its discretion correctly in granting rehabilitative maintenance for 24 months, considering the respondent's age, unemployment, and entitlement to a share of the pension and accrual. The medical aid order was justified given the respondent's medical history and lack of means, and was limited to reasonable expenses for 24 months. The evidence did not support forfeiture of patrimonial benefits, as both parties had extra-marital relationships and the marriage lasted 23 years, making a 50% accrual share appropriate. The costs order was also upheld, as the trial court properly considered the parties' means and conduct, and relative...

Court Disposition

The appeal and counter appeal are both dismissed. Each party is to pay their own costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The counter appeal is dismissed.