M.J.M v L.C.M and Others (5474/2012) [2015] ZAKZDHC 89 (25 November 2015)

M.J.M v L.C.M and Others (5474/2012) [2015] ZAKZDHC 89 (25 November 2015)

The court found that the first defendant was not entitled to maintenance for her major sons, as they have independent claims against both parents. The first defendant exaggerated her expenses and was not candid about her earning capacity, having refused retraining and employment opportunities. The court held that maintenance should not be a lifelong entitlement and awarded rehabilitative maintenance for five years to allow the first defendant to retrain and enter the labour market. The plaintiff was found to have complied with the ante-nuptial contract, and the first defendant was not entitled to further orders in this regard. The court declined to pierce the veil of the Moore Family...

Citation
[2015] ZAKZDHC 89
Parties
Plaintiff: M. J. M.; First Defendant: L. C. M.; Second Defendant: M. J. M. N.O.; Third Defendant: L. C. M. N.O.; Fourth Defendant: S. P. M. N.O.; Fifth Defendant: S. P. M.; Sixth Defendant: L. J. C.; Seventh Defendant: G. J. M.; Eighth Defendant: D. M. M.
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 November 2015
Case Number
5474/2012
Procedural Posture
Divorce Action / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Decree of divorce granted. Rehabilitative maintenance awarded to first defendant for five years. Lump sum and monthly payments ordered. Plaintiff to pay proceeds of Manhattan property to first defendant, less R30,000 advanced. Costs apportioned as per detailed orders.
Judges
Henriques
Legal Topics
Maintenance, Section 7 2 Divorce Act, Ante Nuptial Contract, Piercing Trust Veil, Contribution to Costs, Costs Awards
Family and Children Civil Procedure Maintenance Section 7 2 Divorce Act Ante Nuptial Contract Piercing Trust Veil Contribution to Costs Costs Awards

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 6 Authorities cited 31 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. J. M.

Plaintiff

L. C. M.

First Defendant

M. J. M. N.O.

Second Defendant

L. C. M. N.O.

Third Defendant

S. P. M. N.O.

Fourth Defendant

S. P. M.

Fifth Defendant

L. J. C.

Sixth Defendant

G. J. M.

Seventh Defendant

D. M. M.

Eighth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Divorce Action / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the first defendant entitled to maintenance until death or remarriage, including claims for her major sons?
  2. 2 Should the plaintiff comply with the terms of the ante-nuptial contract?
  3. 3 Is the first defendant entitled to lump sum payments as part of maintenance?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first defendant was not entitled to maintenance for her major sons, as they have independent claims against both parents. The first defendant exaggerated her expenses and was not candid about her earning capacity, having refused retraining and employment opportunities. The court held that maintenance should not be a lifelong entitlement and awarded rehabilitative maintenance for five years to allow the first defendant to retrain and enter the labour market. The plaintiff was found to have complied with the ante-nuptial contract, and the first defendant was not entitled to further orders in this regard. The court declined to pierce the veil of the Moore Family...

Court Disposition

Decree of divorce granted. Rehabilitative maintenance awarded to first defendant for five years. Lump sum and monthly payments ordered. Plaintiff to pay proceeds of Manhattan property to first defendant, less R30,000 advanced. Costs apportioned as per detailed orders.

Orders

  • A decree of divorce is granted.
  • Plaintiff is to pay first defendant R27,700 per month for five years, escalating annually with CPI.