L M v T M (A30/2020) [2020] ZAFSHC 178; 2021 (6) SA 483 (FB) (22 October 2020)

L M v T M (A30/2020) [2020] ZAFSHC 178; 2021 (6) SA 483 (FB) (22 October 2020)

The appeal court found that the trial court correctly applied the principles of forfeiture under section 9(1) of the Divorce Act. The appellant failed to provide satisfactory evidence regarding the use of her pension, which was used without the respondent's involvement and contrary to their agreement. The trial court properly considered the duration and acrimonious nature of the marriage, noting that the parties had lived separate lives for several years. The expansion of the forfeiture order to include movable property was justified, as the appellant had already taken more than her half share. The trial court's holistic approach to the breakdown of the marriage and the contributions of...

Citation
[2020] ZAFSHC 178
Parties
Appellant: L M (born M); Respondent: T M
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 October 2020
Case Number
A30/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Regional Court, Welkom; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; forfeiture order upheld.
Judges
CF Nekosie, JP Daffue
Legal Topics
Forfeiture of Benefits, Divorce Act Section 9, Division of Joint Estate, Pension Interest, Marital Misconduct
Family and Children Forfeiture of Benefits Divorce Act Section 9 Division of Joint Estate Pension Interest Marital Misconduct

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

Parties

L M (born M)

Appellant

T M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Regional Court, Welkom; Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in granting a forfeiture order against the appellant regarding benefits from the marriage in community of property.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant would be unduly benefited if forfeiture was not ordered.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court correctly assessed the duration and breakdown circumstances of the marriage.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal court found that the trial court correctly applied the principles of forfeiture under section 9(1) of the Divorce Act. The appellant failed to provide satisfactory evidence regarding the use of her pension, which was used without the respondent's involvement and contrary to their agreement. The trial court properly considered the duration and acrimonious nature of the marriage, noting that the parties had lived separate lives for several years. The expansion of the forfeiture order to include movable property was justified, as the appellant had already taken more than her half share. The trial court's holistic approach to the breakdown of the marriage and the contributions of...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; forfeiture order upheld.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • By agreement, the appellant shall retain full ownership of her pension benefits paid into her attorney's trust account by order of the court a quo.