L M v R T (28133/2009) [2018] ZAGPJHC 676 (16 November 2018)

L M v R T (28133/2009) [2018] ZAGPJHC 676 (16 November 2018)

The court found that both parties were registered co-owners of the property in equal undivided shares, and there was no substantiated basis for the applicant to claim 100% of the proceeds. The intention was for both parties to benefit equally from the sale, as evidenced by the registration and prior agreement. Accordingly, only 50% of the proceeds from the sale of the property would form part of the applicant's estate for accrual purposes. The respondent failed to comply fully with the court order dated 5 November 2015, justifying the applicant's application and an award of costs against the respondent. The court also made specific orders regarding child contact, therapy arrangements, and...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPJHC 676
Parties
Applicant: L M; Respondent: R T
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 November 2018
Case Number
28133/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Opposed Motion for Contempt and Enforcement of Divorce Order
Outcome
Application granted in part; orders made regarding child contact, therapy, financial disclosures, and costs. Applicant awarded 50% of the proceeds from the sale of the property for accrual purposes.
Judges
M M MABESELE
Legal Topics
Divorce Settlement, Accrual System, Co Ownership of Property, Contempt of Court, Child Contact, Costs Award
Family and Children Civil Procedure Divorce Settlement Accrual System Co Ownership of Property Contempt of Court Child Contact Costs Award

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L M

Applicant

R T

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Opposed Motion for Contempt and Enforcement of Divorce Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is in contempt of the court order dated 5 November 2015.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent failed to comply with the court order dated 5 November 2015.
  3. 3 Whether the proceeds of the sale of jointly registered property should form part of the applicant's estate for accrual purposes.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both parties were registered co-owners of the property in equal undivided shares, and there was no substantiated basis for the applicant to claim 100% of the proceeds. The intention was for both parties to benefit equally from the sale, as evidenced by the registration and prior agreement. Accordingly, only 50% of the proceeds from the sale of the property would form part of the applicant's estate for accrual purposes. The respondent failed to comply fully with the court order dated 5 November 2015, justifying the applicant's application and an award of costs against the respondent. The court also made specific orders regarding child contact, therapy arrangements, and...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; orders made regarding child contact, therapy, financial disclosures, and costs. Applicant awarded 50% of the proceeds from the sale of the property for accrual purposes.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to transport the minor child T M to reconstruction therapy sessions between 10 and 14 December 2018, with the therapist to advise on further sessions within 30 days.
  • If the appointed therapist is unavailable, the applicant may appoint Kirsten Randall at his own cost to continue therapy.