What is a marriage out of community of property?

In South Africa, a Marriage out of community of property is a legal arrangement that allows a married couple to keep their financial assets and liabilities separate from each other. This means that each spouse has full ownership and control over their own property and finances, and they are not automatically responsible for each other’s debts and financial obligations. They have to enter into an antenuptial contract.  In the event of a divorce or the death of one spouse, the assets and debts of each spouse are usually distributed according to the terms of an ante-nuptial contract. There are typically two main types of marital property regimes when it comes to marriage out of community of property:
  1. Marriage out of community of property with accrual: In this type of arrangement, the couple’s financial affairs are separate during the marriage, but they agree that if the marriage ends (either through divorce or death), the growth or increase in the value of their respective assets during the marriage will be shared equally. This means that any assets or wealth acquired before the marriage remains separate, but the increase in value of these assets during the marriage is subject to sharing.
  2. Marriage out of community of property without accrual: In this arrangement, the financial separation between spouses is strict. Each spouse’s assets and debts are entirely their own, and there is no sharing of assets or growth in assets during the marriage. In the event of divorce or death, each spouse retains what they brought into the marriage, and any assets acquired during the marriage are not subject to sharing.
It’s important to note that the specific laws and regulations governing marriage property regimes vary from one country to another. Some jurisdictions might have default rules regarding property division upon divorce or death, and couples may have the option to enter into prenuptial agreements or other legal arrangements to customize their property rights based on their preferences. Marriage out of community of property is often chosen by individuals who want to maintain separate financial identities and protect their individual assets, especially if they have significant wealth or assets before entering the marriage. However, it’s important for couples to understand the legal implications of their chosen property regime and to consult with legal professionals to ensure that their rights and intentions are properly documented and protected. We service clients in all cities: Rustenburg Kimberley East London Nelspruit Polokwane Pietermaritzburg Bloemfontein Port Elizabeth Pretoria Durban Johannesburg
Posted on by Telelaw

What is a marriage out of community of property?

In South Africa, a Marriage out of community of property is a legal arrangement that allows a married couple to keep their financial assets and liabilities separate from each other. This means that each spouse has full ownership and control over their own property and finances, and they are not automatically responsible for each other’s debts and financial obligations. They have to enter into an antenuptial contract.  In the event of a divorce or the death of one spouse, the assets and debts of each spouse are usually distributed according to the terms of an ante-nuptial contract.

There are typically two main types of marital property regimes when it comes to marriage out of community of property:

  1. Marriage out of community of property with accrual: In this type of arrangement, the couple’s financial affairs are separate during the marriage, but they agree that if the marriage ends (either through divorce or death), the growth or increase in the value of their respective assets during the marriage will be shared equally. This means that any assets or wealth acquired before the marriage remains separate, but the increase in value of these assets during the marriage is subject to sharing.
  2. Marriage out of community of property without accrual: In this arrangement, the financial separation between spouses is strict. Each spouse’s assets and debts are entirely their own, and there is no sharing of assets or growth in assets during the marriage. In the event of divorce or death, each spouse retains what they brought into the marriage, and any assets acquired during the marriage are not subject to sharing.

It’s important to note that the specific laws and regulations governing marriage property regimes vary from one country to another. Some jurisdictions might have default rules regarding property division upon divorce or death, and couples may have the option to enter into prenuptial agreements or other legal arrangements to customize their property rights based on their preferences.

Marriage out of community of property is often chosen by individuals who want to maintain separate financial identities and protect their individual assets, especially if they have significant wealth or assets before entering the marriage. However, it’s important for couples to understand the legal implications of their chosen property regime and to consult with legal professionals to ensure that their rights and intentions are properly documented and protected.

We service clients in all cities:

Rustenburg

Kimberley

East London

Nelspruit

Polokwane

Pietermaritzburg

Bloemfontein

Port Elizabeth

Pretoria

Durban

Johannesburg

Related Post

Top tips from a Senior Family Law Advocate on how to deal with your Child Custody matter in the Ulundi Children’s Court

 

Family law legal matters can be very stressful. This is so whether you live in Ulundi or any other city in South Africa. Especially so if you have no idea how the legal processes work. It is one thing to know that you are entitled to child support, but it is a totally different matter to know the law and procedure on how to claim child support. Luckily in child maintenance matters, the maintenance court is there to assist you in completing the application form. However, many times that is not enough. Especially so if the other parent has a lawyer and knows how to present the case for his or her client.

This article, however, deals with some top tips in care and contact or custody matters in the Children’s Court in Ulundi. It would explain the processes involved and advise on how to be best prepared for your matter. This advice is applicable whether you live in Ulundi or any other city in South Africa.

What to do before visiting the Ulundi Children’s Court

Before you approach the Children’s Court in Ulundi, first try to resolve the issues with the other parent. Therefore, if you want more contact with your child and the other parent is refusing, try to resolve the matter first with that parent. If that does not work, try mediation. The mediator can be anyone, from a trusted mutual friend, priest, or other religious leaders, or a professional like an attorney, psychologist, or the office of the Family Advocate. Ulundi has many professionals that can assist you in this regard. If resolving the matter by yourselves is not possible, or mediation fails, then we suggest you approach the Ulundi Children’s Court for assistance.

TIP: Focus on getting someone neutral to assist in mediating your matter. Organisations like FAMSA and FAMAC can be of assistance. Google them.

Approaching the Ulundi Children’s Court

The Ulundi Children’s Court should be approached if it is the closest Children’s Court to you. You need to verify with the Ulundi Children’s Court that you fall under their area of jurisdiction. If not, they would direct you to which Children’s Court is applicable to you.

Once you arrive at the Ulundi Children’s Court, they will provide you with a form headed “Bringing Matter to Court in Terms of Section 53 Children’s Act, 2005 (Act no. 38 of 2005) Regulation Relating to Children’s Court and International Child Abduction, 2008 [Regulation 6]. This form is also called Form 2.

In this form, you will provide all your particulars and that of the child or children and the other parent. The sections in the form are as follows:

  • PART A: PARTICULARS OF CHILD(REN)
  • PART B: PARTICULARS OF *CHILD WHO IS AFFECTED BY OR INVOLVED IN THE MATTER/PERSON *ACTING IN THE INTEREST OF THE CHILD/*ON BEHALF OF THE CHILD WHO CANNOT ACT IN HIS/HER OWN NAME/ *MEMBER OF A GROUP OF CLASS OF CHILDREN/*IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST (SECTION 53(2)
  • PART C: PARTICULARS OF PERSONS HAVING AN INTEREST IN THE MATTER
  • PART D: PARTICULARS OF MATTER

In part D, the following is stated which you need to provide in the form:

  • Nature of matter brought to Court: (Please give full details of the matter e.g., registration/amendment of parenting plans, removal of child to safe care, children in need of care and protection, placement in youth care centers, adoption etc.
  • Documents: Are there any documents relating to the matter? (If so please attach)

Once you have completed the form and attached the relevant documents to it, you must take it to a commissioner of Oaths to have it commissioned. It does not have to be in Ulundi.

TIP: Draft a separate affidavit explaining your case. Outline some background information and reasons why the Court should give you what you request. Attach it to Form 2.

Processing your Application at the Ulundi Children’s Court

Once you complete the Form A and submit it to the Clerk of the Ulundi Children’s Court, they will process it and allocate it a case number or reference number. The Clerk of the Court would then allocate a date to the matter and advise the parties accordingly when the court date is. Please note that some courts follow a different process for processing the application and informing the parties of the court date. Please enquire from the Court when making the application what process they follow.

TIP: Obtain the contact details of the Court for you to contact them to obtain the Court date or other information. Ask for their contact number and email address.

Appearing in the Ulundi Children’s Court

When notified of the Court date, both you and the other parent should attend. If you are making use of a lawyer (Advocate or Attorney), inform them timeously of the date. Depending on the Court, you may first see the Clerk or go directly to the Magistrate. The Children’s Court would do its best to try to resolve the matter. If the parents cannot come to an agreement, the Children’s Court may postpone the matter for either of the following:

  • Get a social worker involved in the matter;
  • Appoint a legal representative for the minor child;
  • Implement interim care and contact arrangements;
  • Having the parties attempt to agree on a parenting plan;
  •  

In serious matters, the Court may remove the minor child from both parents and place the child in foster care. The powers of the Children’s Court are extensive. It will, however, focus on what is in the child’s best interests.

TIP: Be as vocal as possible. Do not expect the Court to be understanding of your case or be on your side. It is your duty to explain your case and provide the Court with all the relevant information they require for them to make a fair decision.

Finalising the matter in the Ulundi Children’s Court

Once the Ulundi Children’s Court has enough information to make a final decision, it will do so. Depending on the facts of the matter, that could either be making a Parenting Plan, an Order of the Court or a final care and contact Order. The Court may even make further interim orders, where the parties are to return to Court after a few months, or a year later.

TIP: Do not agree to something just because the social worker, a lawyer, or the Court suggest it. You need to be happy with what is decided.

The above Ulundi Children’s Court Application tips should apply to the following provinces and cities:

Eastern Cape:

Alice, Butterworth, East London, Graaff-Reinet, Grahamstown, King William’s Town, Mthatha

Port Elizabeth, Queenstown, Uitenhage, Zwelitsha

Free State:

Bethlehem. Bloemfontein, Jagersfontein, Kroonstad, Odendaalsrus, Parys, Phuthaditjhaba, Sasolburg, Virginia, Welkom

Gauteng:

Benoni, Boksburg, Brakpan, Carletonville, Germiston, Johannesburg, Krugersdorp, Pretoria, Randburg, Randfontein, Roodepoort, Soweto, Springs, Vanderbijlpark, Vereeniging

KwaZulu-Natal:

Durban, Empangeni, Ladysmith, Newcastle, Pietermaritzburg, Pinetown, Ulundi, Umlazi

Limpopo:

Giyani, Lebowakgomo, Musina, Phalaborwa, Polokwane, Seshego, Sibasa, Thabazimbi

Mpumalanga:

Emalahleni, Nelspruit, Secunda, North West, Klerksdorp, Mahikeng, Mmabatho, Potchefstroom, Rustenburg, Northern Cape, Kimberley, Kuruman, Port Nolloth

Western Cape:

Bellville, Ulundi, Constantia, George, Hopefield, Oudtshoorn, Paarl, Simon’s Town, Stellenbosch, Swellendam, Worcester

Posted on by Telelaw

Relocation with my minor child to Taiwan, Taipei (Consent and Refusal) – Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf

The world is becoming a much smaller place, and technology plays a huge role. People are moving across the world for employment, love and happiness, something that was not the norm a few decades ago. There is no reason why you should remain in South Africa if you can find a better life for yourself and your family overseas. Moving overseas may provide you with the quality of life you want or the possibility of experiencing things you always wanted. The same applies to your child or children relocating with you.

Relocation of your minor child to Taipei, Taiwan

If you are single and do not have any minor children, then moving around the world would not be too complicated. All you need to do is ensure that you have the necessary travel documentation and travel ticket (and spending money), and off you go. However, if you want to travel with your minor children (for example, ages nine or ten) or relocate to another country, things may not be that simple. Firstly, if there is another parent, and he or she has parental responsibilities and rights, then his or her consent is required. For example, let us say you live in Krugersdorp or Umlazi, South Africa, and you want to relocate to Taipei, Taiwan, you would require the other parent’s consent to leave South Africa with your minor child. This can cause challenges, especially if the staying parent (in South Africa) does not agree to the relocation.

What about Passport Consent to travel or relocate to Taipei, Taiwan?

The same applies when it comes to your minor child applying for a South African passport to relocate to Taiwan, or any country. Both parents who have parental responsibilities and rights of guardianship will have to consent to the minor child’s passport application as well. In this regard, both parents have to be at the Department of Home Affairs (or the relevant bank that also assists with passport application) when making the Application with the minor child. This can be challenging if you have a disinterested parent who does not want to cooperate with the passport application. As you will see later, legal action would need to be taken.

What are the steps to follow when I want to relocate to Taipei, Taiwan with my minor child? There is another parent.

To simplify the process for relocation, the first step would be to receive the other parent’s consent in principle for the relocation and that he or she will co-operate in this regard. Once that has been resolved, the parent relocating would need to make the appointment for the minor child’s passport application as well as the application for the relevant VISA. Each country has different requirements; however, seeing that it is a relocation, you need to apply for the correct VISA. For that, you need the Passport. Once the visa and travel arrangements have been finalised, the parent remaining behind will sign a parental consent letter for the international travel. That letter can be found on the Department of Home Affairs website. Basically, the parent remaining behind would state that he or she gives consent for the minor child to leave the Republic of South Africa and travel and/or relocate to Taipei, Taiwan.

What can I do if the other parent does not want to consent to the minor child’s relocation to Taipei, Taiwan?

If the parent remaining in South Africa does not want to consent to the minor child’s passport application and/or his or her relocation to Taipei, Taiwan, then you would need to approach the Court. The Court, as upper guardian of the minor child, may order that the parent’s consent for the passport application and relocation be dispensed with. What this entails is submitting Court documents explaining why you want to relocate to Taipei, Taiwan. The other parent would also have an opportunity to give reasons why he or she objects. At the end of the process, the Court would determine what is in the minor child’s best interests. If it is in the minor child’s best interests to relocate to Taipei, Taiwan, the Court would make it possible despite the issue of consent or refusal.

What is the first step I should take if the other parent does not want to consent to the minor child’s passport application and/or relocation to Taipei, Taiwan?

If the other parent does not want to consent to the passport application and/or the relocation of the minor child to Taipei, Taiwan – in that case, we suggest you approach an attorney or advocate (trust account) to assist you with the legal process. He or she would then contact the other parent explaining the reasons for the relocation and request the necessary consent. If the parent remaining in South Africa does still not agree to the passport application and/or to the relocation to Taipei, Taiwan, then the attorney or advocate will proceed to take the matter to court. The legal route can be expensive. However, it is necessary to make the relocation of the minor child possible. You may also attend to the legal process yourself.

Getting legal assistance or help with your relocation application to Taipei, Taiwan

If you require legal assistance or representation with relocating to Taipei, Taiwan due to the other parent not cooperating or providing consent, then feel free to contact us for assistance. The Firm Advocate, Muhammad Abduroaf, deals with these types of matters.

Posted on by Telelaw

Claiming Child Maintenance from Grandparents – What does the law say?

Many people are of the view that child maintenance may only be claimed by the parents of a child. They have that view even in the case where the parents cannot afford to maintain the child, but the grandparents can. At the outset, we state that the latter view is incorrect. If parents cannot afford to maintain a child, a claim for maintenance may be made against both the paternal and maternal grandparents of the child involved. This applies whether or not the child was born in or out of wedlock. Prior to 2004, or before the case of Petersen v Maintenance Officer, Simon’s Town Maintenance Court, and Others 2004 (2) SA 56 (C), the law allowed parents to claim maintenance for their minor children from maternal and paternal grandparents, as long as the child was born within wedlock, or out of a marriage. If the child was born out of wedlock, then in such a case, the parent could only claim from the maternal grandparents. And not the paternal grandparents. This was clearly unfair and unconstitutional and something that many people would have issues with. In 2004, Adv. Muhammad Abduroaf had a client who wanted to claim maintenance from the maternal grandparents of her minor child, but the law did not allow for it. He and his client was not happy with the legal position and took the matter to the Western Cape High Court (the Provisional Division of the Cape). Adv. Abduroaf cited the Maintenance Office of Simon’s Town Maintenance Court and the paternal grandparents. The matter was argued, and the Court found in favour of Adv. Muhammad Abduroaf and his client. The case opened many doors for mothers in similar positions. Below we discuss the case. Due to Adv. Muhammad Abduroaf’s academic background in Constitutional law and willingness to fight for his client, he challenged the legal position.

Petersen v Maintenance Officer, Simon’s Town Maintenance Court, and Others

2004 (2) SA 56 (C)

The well-known case of Petersen v Maintenance Officer, Simon’s Town Maintenance Court, and Others 2004 (2) SA 56 (C) was a special one. Not because Adv. Abduroaf and his client were successful, but the effect of the case meant that children who could never claim maintenance from paternal grandparents if they were born out of wedlock could do so due to the case. The case also brought about widespread attention to the fact that a parent can claim maintenance from grandparents when the parents cannot afford to support the child on their own.

The following is extracted from the case of Petersen v Maintenance Officer, Simon’s Town Maintenance Court, and Others 2004 (2) SA 56 (C) :

[6] The Motan decision is generally accepted as authority for the assertion that the paternal grandparents of an extramarital child do not owe a duty of support to the child. The interpretation of the common law in Motan and the resultant denial of a duty of support by the paternal grandparents of an E extra-marital child has, even prior to the present constitutional dispensation, been widely criticised by South African writers. Van den Heever Breach of Promise and Seduction in South African Law (1954) at 70 says the following: ‘It is submitted that the decision is so patently wrong that it should be reconsidered; for it is based on legislative considerations and methods, which are, moreover, unsound. It is contrary to public policy and humanity and should, if necessary, be rectified by the Legislature.’

This is what Adv. Abduroaf argued:

[7] Mr Abduroaf, who appears for the applicant, submitted that the common-law rule as interpreted in Motan, violates the extra-marital child’s constitutional rights to equality and dignity enshrined in ss 9 and 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996 (the Constitution) and is contrary to the best interest of the child (see s 28(2) of the Constitution). He accordingly submits that the common-law rule is unreasonable and unjustifiable and should be declared unconstitutional and invalid.

Adv. Abduroaf further submitted:

[14] Mr Abduroaf submitted that the constitutional values embodied in ss 9, 10 and 28(2) of the Constitution, dictate that the common-law rule as enunciated in Motan, be developed by imposing a duty of support upon the paternal grandparents of an extra-marital child in the event of the natural parents of such child being unable to support the child. The said sections of the Constitution provide: ‘9 (1) Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law. (2) Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms. To promote the achievement of equality, legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken. (3) The State may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth. (4) No person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds in terms of ss (3). National legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination. (5) Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in ss (3) is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair. 10 Everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and protected.   . . . 28 (2) A child’s best interest is of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child.’  

The Ruling in Petersen v Maintenance Officer, Simon’s Town Maintenance Court, and Others 2004 (2) SA 56 (C)

At the end of the matter, the Court made the following ruling: [29] In the result I make the following order:
  1. It is declared that the second and third respondents have a legal duty to support the extra-marital child of the applicant, J, born on 7 January 2003, to the same extent to which the fourth and fifth respondents are liable to maintain the said child.
  2. The first respondent is directed to take the necessary steps for an enquiry to be held in terms of s 10 of the Maintenance Act 99 of 1998, with a view to enquiring into the provision of maintenance by the second and third respondents for the said extra-marital child of the applicant.
  3. No order as to costs is made.
Petersen v Maintenance Officer, Simon’s Town Maintenance Court, and Others 2004 (2) SA 56 (C) [caption id="attachment_10745" align="alignnone" width="300"]Best Attorneys, Advocates, lawyers to assist you in your Court Custody matter. When is the best time to get them involved in your case? Adv. Muhammad Abduroaf[/caption]

Posted on by Telelaw

Do you require a video legal advice consultation?

Click here and schedule one today!