Living together, make sure you have a cohabitation agreement, otherwise you leave with nothing!

Personal finance: If you don’t say ‘I do”, get it in writing – Interview with Bertus Preller – Family Law Attorney

Gone are the days of “single” or “married”. You only have to look at Facebook’s relationship declaration options to know that today’s partnerships come in all shapes and sizes.

But what are the financial risks of being involved in a long-term relationship that is not formally recognised as a marriage?

We quizzed some experts to find out the best ways to protect yourself if you don’t fancy walking down the aisle with your life partner.

Family law attorney Bertus Preller said patterns of marriage, divorce and cohabiting without marriage had been changing for years.

“The incidences of domestic partnerships are growing throughout the world.”

Preller said that, according to the 1996 census, 1.3million people described themselves as living with a partner. When the 2001 census came around, this figure had almost doubled to nearly 2.4million.

Many people believe that, if they live together for some time, the relationship will be recognised by the state, and there will be legal rights, duties and protection.

But Preller said there was no such thing as common-law marriage – because the concept has been abolished worldwide.

“The time a couple spend living together does not translate into a default marriage. The consequence is that, at the dissolution of the relationship, the assets or any obligations are determined or distributed on a basis of the arrangement that parties used during their relationship,” he said.

Domestic partnerships were never prohibited in South African law – but neither did they enjoy any noteworthy recognition or protection, Preller said.

“In SA, marriage laws traditionally provided parties with a variety of legal protections. These laws governed what happened to the property of the parties during the marriage and on dissolution, either by divorce or death, and also meant that certain benefits were automatically acquired, such as membership of medical aid funds, pension funds, etc.

“Married spouses also had a reciprocal duty of support under the common law.”

Preller said South African courts had occasionally helped couples by deciding that an express or implied universal partnership existed, but this was usually difficult to prove.

“The only way to be protected in our law is to enter into a cohabitation agreement. Such an agreement clarifies the expectations of the partners and also serves as an early warning of future problems.

“A cohabitation agreement will determine what would happen to the property and assets of the couple if they should decide to separate. The agreement is, however, not enforceable in so far as third parties are concerned.”

However, in terms of the 2005 Children’s Act, the parents of children born out of wedlock had a duty to maintain their offspring, “irrespective of the living arrangements”, Preller said.

“Basically a cohabitation agreement regulates rights and duties between the partners.

“It could almost be compared to an antenuptial contract entered into prior to the conclusion of a civil marriage.

“The agreement can provide for the division and distribution of assets upon dissolution: for instance, the formal agreement may set out the rights and obligations towards each other; the respective financial contributions to the joint home; clarify arrangements regarding ownership of property that they may purchase jointly and the division of their jointly owned assets should they separate,” said Preller.

“An agreement such as this will be legally binding as long as it contains no provisions that are immoral or illegal.

“If there is no agreement on the dissolution of a domestic partnership agreement, a party would only be entitled to retain those assets which he or she has purchased and owns and further would be entitled to share in the assets proportionately in terms of the contribution which they have made to the partnership.”

Preller said, however, that problems arose if a partner tried to enforce a domestic partnership agreement if the partner being sued was married to someone else.

“It has been argued that in such cases domestic partnership agreements violate public policy to the extent that they impair the community of property rights (where applicable) of the lawful married spouse.”

He said the Domestic Partnerships Bill was still being formulated, and it wasn’t clear how it would be implemented.

“In the current constitutional dispensation it is unlikely that a partner will be left in despair, taking into account the Domestic Partnerships Bill,” Preller said.

Fiona Renton, head of the legal services department at financial and risk services provider Alexander Forbes, said: “My advice would be for cohabiting couples to enter into a contract – a written partnership agreement that states exactly what will happen in the event of death or a split, protecting their rights and outlining their obligations.

“For example, when it comes to the ownership of property, the contract should state what happens to ownership of the property (such as one spouse buying out the other) or payments in the event of death or a split.

“Putting any relationship into writing is always helpful, even if it’s just adding someone on your medical aid as a dependant.

“Having said that, in the event of death, having a will is always the best idea.

“Out of the bounds of a legally recognised marriage there is no intestate succession – meaning there is no automatic participation in the estate to make sure the other partner is looked after.”

Joint accounts never a good idea

Money is one of the most important matters a couple needs to resolve when contemplating living together or marriage, according to Sugendhree Reddy, director of banking products at Standard Bank.

“One issue that often comes up in these kinds of discussions is whether to have a joint bank account. In many ways, this can seem like an appealing option.

“However, most financial experts don’t recommend having a joint account at all. We never encourage a joint account because whether you are married or living together, you both need to grow your assets and get a good credit rating. Having a joint account invariably makes it difficult for one of the partners to do so. Besides, a joint bank account puts one partner at great risk in the event of a break-up, death or financial difficulties.”

Reddy said there was no joint bank account with two equal account holders. “A ‘joint’ account is actually an account in one person’s name, to which the other person is a signatory. This causes a number of complications for that signatory. The most important of these is that without a bank account in your name, you will have no credit record at the bank – which makes it difficult to get credit at shops, open a cellphone account or apply for a loan.”

In the event of a break-up, Reddy said, the joint account could be emptied by one partner or the person in whose name the bank account is held could remove the second signatory.

If one partner dies, “banks tend to freeze the account until the estate is resolved – leaving the signatory partner with no access to the funds for an extended time”, said Reddy.

Reddy advises couples to split responsibility for monthly expenses, or open an account for the household into which both pay a portion of their salaries for general expenses.

Who gets your pension?

There are typically two types of benefits payable to “spouses”, says Fiona Renton, head of legal services at Alexander Forbes.

“Firstly pensions, which are payable to those who qualify as spouses – and that would depend on how each fund defines an ‘eligible spouse’: people must check the fund rules to see if their partner/spouse would qualify.

“Fund rules may stipulate that you must be married to the same person at date of retirement and date of death for them to qualify for a spouse’s pension. This prevents so-called ‘death-bed marriages’ where a pensioner marries someone much younger than them after they have already retired – and on their death the fund realises that there is a much younger spouse to whom they have a liability to pay a pension for many years.”

The second benefit type is the typical fund benefit (fund credit or share of fund) plus an insured multiple of a salary (three times annual salary, for example).

“This is allocated by the trustees, to your dependants and nominees.

“A dependant includes a spouse; the Pension Funds Act defines a spouse as ‘a person who is the permanent life partner or spouse or civil union partner of a member in accordance with the Marriage Act, Recognition of Customary Marriages Act, Civil Union Act or the tenets of a religion. A very wide definition.”

To ensure that no partner is overlooked, the pension fund member should always nominate a beneficiary in the relevant form to help the trustees – although trustees are not absolutely bound to follow that nomination, said Renton.

“Unfortunately, when it comes to death and money such decisions by fund trustees are often contested.”

No maintenance for a sacked lover

Not so long ago I wrote an article about the fact that in South African law there is in fact no such thing as a common law marriage and that partners that cohabitates or live together in a domestic partnership will in fact have no right to claim maintenance from one another. In fact, this was exactly what the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled this week in the matter of McDonald v Young (292/10) [2011] ZASCA 31 on 24 March 2011.

The facts of this case were as follows.

The parties were involved in a relationship and had cohabited, as man and wife, for approximately seven years from June 1999 until May 2006. After the relationship broke down, the appellant instituted an action against the respondent in the Western Cape High Court (Cape Town) for an order declaring that a joint venture agreement existed between the parties in respect of immovable property (the property) situate at Port Island, Port St Francis, in the Eastern Cape, alternatively, for an order that the respondent pay maintenance to the appellant. The high court (Veldhuizen J) found that the appellant had failed to prove the existence of a joint venture agreement and, in respect of the maintenance claim, that there was no duty on the respondent to support the appellant. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court with the leave of the high court.

The issues on appeal, as in the high court, wer whether the appellant has established the existence of a joint venture agreement between the parties, alternatively, whether the respondent is under a duty (by operation of law, or alternatively, by virtue of a tacit contract) to support the appellant subsequent to their cohabitation.

Shortly after the parties were introduced to each other the appellant took up residence with the respondent at her farm in Knysna. The appellant’s main business interest was the promotion and marketing of surfing and surfboard products. During 1999, the appellant and his Durban-based brother had been in the process of establishing a new business, Inter Surf Africa Exporters (ISAE), which was involved in the manufacture and export of surfboards. The appellant did not possess any meaningful assets and had very limited income. The respondent, on the other hand, was a woman of considerable means. She had an annual cash income in excess of R1,3m and possessed substantial assets. When the appellant and the respondent met, they were 59 and 54 years of age, respectively. It was common cause that the appellant had not been in receipt of a regular income and had, for a time, during the course of the relationship, received a monthly allowance from the respondent.

The appellant’s claim to a half-share in the property was based on an express oral joint venture agreement concluded by the parties. The appellant testified that the terms of the agreement were that the respondent would contribute financially to the acquisition, completion and refurbishment of the property while the appellant would contribute his time and expertise to oversee the development of the property. According to the appellant, it was agreed that they would each share jointly in the property. The appellant testified that the primary objective of the agreement was to ensure that he gained financial independence. Despite the fact that the property was to have been registered in both their names, it was subsequently agreed, according to him, that the property would be registered in the respondent’s name for tax purposes. It was common cause that the initial written agreement had reflected both their names as purchasers of the property.

It was contended, on behalf of the appellant, that the high court had erred in failing to accept and rely on the appellant’s evidence regarding the agreement, having particular regard to the fact that his evidence was unchallenged. It was further contended that the respondent’s failure to testify was fatal to her case and that this court was obliged to accept his unchallenged evidence in respect of both the agreement and the claim for maintenance.

In our law it is settled that uncontradicted evidence is not necessarily acceptable or sufficient to discharge an onus. In Kentz (Pty) Ltd v Power, Cloete J undertook a careful review of relevant cases where this principle was endorsed and applied. The learned judge pointed out that the most succinct statement of the law in this regard is to be found in Siffman v Kriel, where Innes CJ said:

‘It does not follow, because evidence is uncontradicted, that therefore it is true . . . The story told by the person on whom the onus rests may be so improbable as not to discharge it.’

It was thus necessary to consider the appellant’s evidence in detail. It was clear from the judgment of the high court that it was mindful that the appellant’s evidence, in order to be reliable, had to be credible. The high court, on the evidence, reached the conclusion that the respondent had ‘initially intended that the contract should reflect the [appellant] as one of the purchasers’. However, it did not accept his evidence in its entirety and went on to find that the appellant had failed to prove the existence of a joint venture agreement.

In the Judge’s view, there were a number of unsatisfactory aspects in the appellant’s evidence. It was significant noted by the court how the appellant’s claim against the respondent has developed over time. During May 2006 and shortly after the parties parted ways, they met, in the presence of their respective attorneys, with a view to settle the disputes between them. The appellant’s evidence regarding the claim he had advanced at that meeting, was as follows:

‘So the idea was to try and settle the split between yourself and Mrs Young? — I accept ─ I looked at it like that because it did look like we weren’t going to get together again, so I assumed that that was the reason.

And what were your claims that day? — My claims that day with regards to my share of Port St Francis, with regards to my contribution I had made over the seven years and discussion on my contract with the bakkie.’

This was in stark contrast to his testimony in the magistrate’s court to the effect that he had, at the time of the meeting, been under the impression that he did not have a claim against the respondent and that the claim had ‘materialised some time afterwards when I . . . approached some attorneys for advice’. The appellant’s explanation for the contradiction, that he had meant to convey that he had not yet ‘implemented’ his claim, is, in my view, unsatisfactory. The very purpose of the meeting was an attempt to resolve the dispute between himself and the respondent without the need to resort to litigation.

On 17 July 2006, and following upon the May 2006 meeting, the appellant’s attorney wrote a letter to the respondent’s attorney, which was intended to ‘motivate and substantiate’ the appellant’s claim against the respondent ‘as comprehensively as possible’. (The Court’s emphasis.) It was recorded in the letter that the appellant believed that a universal partnership had existed between the parties and that he was entitled to ‘some form of compensation’ (The Court’s emphasis.) for his contribution to the partnership. It is instructive that no mention was made of the appellant’s half-share in the property, despite the fact that the appellant testified that he had given his attorney instructions in this regard and that he (the appellant) had had sight of the letter prior to it being dispatched. The development of the appellant’s claim over time is not without significance.

During the period that the parties were cohabiting, the appellant drafted numerous agreements and proposals, the purpose of which was to define the financial relationship between him and the respondent. On 24 July 2003, the respondent executed a sole agency mandate in terms of which she appointed the appellant as agent to sell the property and undertook to pay a commission of ten per cent to him. It was the appellant’s testimony that the commission he would have earned was to have provided him with financial security. The appellant agreed that he had, during October 2004, drafted an agreement, aimed at resolving the constant disputes he and the respondent had had regarding his financial security. The salient terms of this agreement were that (i) he was appointed as sole agent to sell two properties, including the property which is the subject of this dispute; (ii) he would be paid a commission of ten per cent for securing the sale of the properties; and (iii) the respondent would purchase government retail bonds to the value of R500 000 on behalf of the appellant. It was also his evidence that the relationship between him and the respondent had been particularly volatile at that time and his intention, in drafting this agreement, was to achieve clarification regarding his financial position.

It was surprising that the appellant failed to mention his half-share in the property in the October 2004 proposal. This was even more surprising when regard is had to his evidence that he was at that time concerned, as there was uncertainty regarding his financial future. The wording of this proposal, as well as the agency agreement, excludes the possibility that he had acquired a share in the property. It was in the court’s view extremely improbable that had the parties agreed in 1999 when the property was purchased that they would be joint owners thereof, the appellant would not, in 2004, have recorded his right to, or even a claim for, a half-share in a proposal aimed at settling outstanding matters between him and the respondent.

Counsel for the appellant attached great importance to the fact that the initial agreement had recorded both parties’ names as purchasers. The appellant assumed that both names were inserted on the instructions of the respondent. There was no evidence to support this assumption. Even if such instructions did emanate from the respondent, it does not necessarily follow, as was found by the high court, that this meant that there was an agreement between the parties as alleged by the appellant. The recording of both parties’ names is nothing more than an indicator pointing towards the conclusion of an agreement and it is a factor to be considered in conjunction with the probabilities.

There were a number of factors that support the respondent’s denial of the existence of a joint venture agreement between the parties. These included: the claim as articulated at the meeting with their legal representatives shortly after the break-up, the letter written after that meeting, various agreements drafted by the appellant, and the unsatisfactory and often contradictory evidence given by the appellant. The court mentioned that the appellant contradicted himself on one of the essential terms of the agreement, namely, whether it was agreed that he would be entitled to half of the proceeds of the sale of the property only or the property together with its contents.

The appellant bore the onus of proving the agreement upon which he relied as well as the terms thereof. Having regard to the deficiencies in the appellant’s evidence and the probabilities, it cannot be said that it measures up to the standard required for acceptability in respect of the existence of the joint venture agreement. In Da Mata v Otto NO, Van Blerk JA, dealing with the approach to be adopted when deciding probabilities, said:

‘In regard to the appellant’s sworn statements alleging the oral agreement, it does not follow that because these allegations were not contradicted ─ the only witness who could have disputed them had died ─ they should be taken as proof of the facts involved. Wigmore on Evidence, 3rd ed., vol. VII, p. 260, states that the mere assertion of any witness does not of itself need to be believed, even though he is unimpeached in any manner, because to require such belief would be to give a quantative and impersonal measure to testimony. The learned author in this connection at p. 262 cites the following passage from a decision quoted:

“It is not infrequently supposed that a sworn statement is necessarily proof, and that, if uncontradicted, it established the fact involved. Such is by no means the law. Testimony, regardless of the amount of it, which is contrary to all reasonable probabilities or conceded facts ─ testimony which no sensible man can believe ─ goes for nothing; while the evidence of a single witness to a fact, there being nothing to throw discredit thereon, cannot be disregarded.”’

The appellant’s testimony was contrary to all reasonable probabilities and, despite the fact that it was unchallenged, counts for ‘nothing’. In assessing the probabilities, the conclusion seems to be inescapable that the appellant has not discharged the onus resting on him. It follows that the appellant was not entitled to the relief sought in respect of the main claim.

The court considered the alternative claim for maintenance and dealt first with the argument that such a duty existed by operation of law. In South African law, certain family relationships, such as parent and child and husband and wife, create a duty of support. The common law has been extended in line with the Constitution to protect contractual rights of support in the same way as the common law duty of support. In Amod v Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund (Commission for Gender Equality Intervening), this High Court of Appeal recognised a contractual right to support arising out of a marriage in terms of Islamic law for purposes of a dependant’s action. In Du Plessis v Road Accident Fund, the common law action by a spouse, for loss of support against the wrongdoer who unlawfully kills the other spouse, was extended to partners in a same-sex permanent life relationship similar in other respects to marriage, who had tacitly undertaken reciprocal duties of support. The Constitutional Court in Satchwell v President of the Republic of South Africa & another, found that the common law duty of support, could, in certain circumstances, be extended to persons in a same-sex relationship. Madala J, writing for the court, commented as follows:

‘The law attaches a duty of support to various family relationships, for example, husband and wife, and parent and child. In a society where the range of family formations has widened, such a duty of support may be inferred as a matter of fact in certain cases of persons involved in permanent, same-sex life partnerships. Whether such a duty of support exists or not will depend on the circumstances of each case.’

Counsel for the appellant relied on Kahn, Amod and Du Plessis in support of his contention that a legal duty of support rests on the respondent. This contention was misplaced. In both Amod and Khan, the parties in respect of whom a duty of support had been alleged had been married to each other in terms of Islamic law. The ratio of the court, in both cases, was that the marriage between the parties had given rise to reciprocal contractual duties of support on the part of the parties to that marriage. In Du Plessis, Cloete JA, having had regard to the facts of that matter, concluded that the plaintiff had proved that the deceased had undertaken to support him and that the deceased had owed the plaintiff a contractual duty of support. The learned judge of appeal said:

‘In the present case the case for drawing an inference that the plaintiff and the deceased undertook reciprocal duties of support is even stronger. The plaintiff and the deceased would have married one another if they could have done so. As this course was not open to them, they went through a “marriage” ceremony which was as close as possible to a heterosexual marriage ceremony. The fact that the plaintiff and the deceased went through such a “marriage” ceremony and did so before numerous witnesses gives rise to the inference that they intended to do the best they could to publicise to the world that they intended their relationship to be, and to be regarded as, similar in all respects to that of a heterosexual married couple, ie one in which the parties would have a reciprocal duty of support. That having been their intention, it must be accepted as a probability that they tacitly undertook a reciprocal duty of support to one another.

Further support for this finding is the fact that the plaintiff and the deceased thereafter lived together as if they were legally married in a stable and permanent relationship until the deceased was killed some 11 years later; they were accepted by their family and friends as partners in such a relationship; they pooled their income and shared their family responsibilities; each of them made a will in which the other partner was appointed his sole heir; and when the plaintiff was medically boarded, the deceased expressly stated that he would support the plaintiff financially and in fact did so until he died.’

Amod, Khan and Du Plessis were decided on the basis of contracts entered into by the respective parties, and are not authority for the contention that there is a duty of support, by operation of law, on the respondent to maintain the appellant.

The question whether the relationship between the parties, a heterosexual couple who choose to live together, free from the bonds of matrimony, gives rise to a legal duty of support, could in the Judge’s view, be answered with reference to Volks NO v Robinson & others. In that matter the Constitutional Court was concerned with the interpretation and constitutionality of s 2(1), read with s 1, of the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act 27 of 1990, which confers on surviving spouses the right to claim maintenance from the estates of their deceased spouses if they are not able to support themselves. The court had to determine whether the exclusion of survivors of permanent life partnerships from the protection of the Act constituted unfair discrimination. Skweyiya J, writing for the majority, referred with approval to the comments made by O’Regan J in Dawood & another v Minister of Home Affairs & others; Shalabi & another v Minister of Home Affairs & others; Thomas & another v Minister of Home Affairs & others that:

‘Marriage and the family are social institutions of vital importance. Entering into and sustaining a marriage is a matter of intense private significance to the parties to that marriage for they make a promise to one another to establish and maintain an intimate relationship for the rest of their lives which they acknowledge obliges them to support one another, to live together and to be faithful to one another.

The institutions of marriage and the family are important social institutions that provide for the security, support and companionship of members of our society and bear an important role in the rearing of children. The celebration of a marriage gives rise to moral and legal obligations, particularly the reciprocal duty of support placed upon spouses and their joint responsibility for supporting and raising children born of the marriage. These legal obligations perform an important social function.’

The Constitutional Court was of the view that the law may distinguish between married people and unmarried people and may, in appropriate circumstances, accord benefits to married people which it does not accord to unmarried people. The learned justice reasoned as follows in para 55:

‘There are a wide range of legal privileges and obligations that are triggered by the contract of marriage. In a marriage the spouses’ rights are largely fixed by law and not by agreement, unlike in the case of parties who cohabit without being married.’

The court found that whilst there was a reciprocal duty of support between married persons, ‘no duty of support arises by operation of law in the case of unmarried cohabitants’. This was an unequivocal statement of the law by the Constitutional Court. Skweyiya J went on to state that to the extent that any obligations arise between cohabitants during the subsistence of their relationship, these arise by agreement and only to the extent of that agreement.

The court also considered whether a contractual duty of support towards the appellant existed. The argument, presented as a second alternative to the claim based on a joint venture, was that the court should find that the parties had entered into a tacit agreement in terms of which the respondent had agreed to support the appellant even after the end of their relationship.

The facts upon which the appellant relies in support of his claim that the respondent had assumed a duty of support towards him are the following:

(i) He and the respondent had lived together as if they were legally married in a stable and permanent relationship;

(ii) The respondent had supported him during the seven-year period that they had resided together and the appellant had been dependent on such support. She had given him an allowance, provided transport for him and paid for entertainment and overseas holidays;

(iii) The respondent had, in a series of wills, made extensive provision for financial support of the appellant in the event of her death;

(iv) The respondent was a wealthy woman while he had no assets and very limited income;

(v) He had contributed to the maintenance of and increase in value of the respondent’s estate, often at the expense of his own business interests; (vi) The appellant was reliant on an income from employment and could not, due to his advanced age, guarantee for how much longer he would be able to earn a living; and

(vii) The respondent had advised the appellant that she had sufficient funds to support both of them.

The argument that the parties had entered into a tacit agreement regarding maintenance cannot be sustained for a number of reasons. First, the reliance on a tacit contract is inconsistent with the appellant’s evidence. The appellant believed and gave evidence to the effect that he and the respondent had concluded an express agreement in respect of the property, the aim of which was to ensure that he was financially independent. Implicit in this is the intention that he would not have to rely on the respondent, or any other person, for financial support. In the circumstances, the appellant could not have formed the intention to contract tacitly with the respondent. Having regard to his evidence that the purpose of the joint venture agreement was to render him financially independent, the appellant could not at the same time have contemplated, that the respondent would continue to support him for the rest of his life. A tacit contract must not extend to more than the parties contemplated. In Rand Trading Co Ltd v Lewkewitsch the parties had erroneously assumed that there was a contract in existence between them. The court did not accept the argument that the company’s conduct in recognising the existence of the lease, paying the rent and otherwise performing in terms of the contract had created a binding contract. Solomon J said:

‘But I think the answer to that argument is a very clear one, and it is this ─ that all these facts are explained on the simple ground that both parties erroneously assumed that there was a contract in existence between them . . . And the mere fact . . . that both parties erroneously assumed that there was a contract in existence at that date altogether precludes us from now inferring a new contract.’

The appellant’s stated belief, that there was an express contract between him and the respondent in respect of the property, precludes this court from drawing an inference to the effect that the parties had entered into a tacit agreement the terms of which were inconsistent with the express agreement to which he testified. It was not open for the appellant to contend that if the court disbelieved his evidence that a joint venture agreement had been concluded, the court should infer from the proved facts that a tacit contract had come into existence, because such an inference cannot be drawn where it would conflict with what he said was the actual position. A litigant can plead, but not testify, in the alternative.

Secondly, the appellant’s evidence was that the respondent’s attitude had always been that in the event that their relationship ended, he would receive no financial benefit from her. This conduct, on the part of the respondent, is inconsistent with a tacit agreement to support the appellant. The appellant’s explanation for drafting the various proposals regarding the financial relationship between him and the respondent was as follows:

‘Well, the motivation behind it at that particular time, we were going through quite a patchy period; we were arguing and not agreeing on a lot of things. And it appeared to me that all of a sudden my situation could alter and I’d be left standing high and dry. And I discussed it with Lesley [the respondent] and I felt that if we had something in writing, and if that did occur at least I had something to fall back on . . . ’. (Emphasis added.)

It is trite that a tacit contract is established by conduct. In order to establish a tacit contract, the conduct of the parties must be such that it justifies an inference that there was consensus between them. There must be evidence of conduct which justifies an inference that the parties intended to, and did, contract on the terms alleged. It is clear from the appellant’s evidence that there was no consensus between the parties. The appellant, on his own testimony, was uncertain about his financial future. He realised that he would only be entitled to what had been agreed between the parties, hence his desire to have a written contract ‘to fall back on’. The respondent’s attitude, as testified to by the appellant, that he would leave the relationship without any financial benefit, is an indicator that she had not, tacitly or otherwise, agreed to support the appellant. I am not satisfied that this court can conclude, from all the relevant proven facts and circumstances, that a tacit contract, in terms of which the respondent undertook to financially maintain the appellant, for as long as he needed such maintenance, came into existence.

For those reasons, the appellant’s maintenance claim which is premised on a legal, alternatively, a contractual duty, failed.

Bertus Preller is a Divorce and Family Law Attorney in Cape Town and has more than 20 years experience in law and 13 years as a practising attorney. He specializes in Family law and Divorce Law at Abrahams and Gross Attorneys Inc. in Cape Town. Bertus is also the Family Law expert on Health24.com and on the expert panel of Law24.com. His areas of expertise are Divorce Law, Family Law, Divorce Mediation, Custody (care and contact) of children, same sex marriages, unmarried fathers rights, domestic violence matters and international divorce law.

Cohabitation Law in South Africa – if you don’t have an agreement you may leave with nothing

Cohabitation Trends

Patterns of marriage, divorce, and cohabitating without marriage have been changing. The incidences of domestic partnerships are growing throughout the world. In America 45% of all couples living together are unmarried.

In Sweden, 9/10 couples marrying for the first time already live together, while in Denmark, more than 1/3 of women in their early 20’s are living with a partner without the ties of marriage. As a rough estimate, around one million heterosexual couples are living together without being married in Britain, while in France the number has reached 2.5 million.

South Africa

South African statistics demonstrate a rising trend in cohabitation. Somewhat conservative statistics indicate that a very large number of people live in domestic partnerships in South Africa. The census of 1996 found that 1, 268,964 people described themselves as living together with a partner while the 2001 Census estimated that nearly 2.4 million individuals were living in domestic partnerships, almost doubling the figures of 1996.

In South African law, there is no such thing as a Common Law Marriage. There is no common law marriage in South African law and therefore the duration that a couple spend living together does not translate into a default marriage. The consequence is that at the dissolution of the relationship the assets or any obligations are determined or distributed on a basis of the arrangement that parties used during the subsistence of their relationship.  Many people believe that simply living together with another person for a continuous period of time establishes legal rights and duties between them. Some people believe that the duration of the relationship creates legal protection while others think that having children together entitles the cohabitation relationship to legal protection. Many people do not know that there is actually no legal recognition of domestic partnerships.

The lack of awareness of legal rights may be as a result of the still prevalent belief in the existence of common-law marriage, despite the fact that this concept has been abolished worldwide.

In South Africa marriage laws have traditionally provided parties to a marriage with a variety of legal protections. These laws governed what happened to the property of the parties during the marriage and on dissolution, either by divorce or death it also means that many State were automatically acquired, such as membership of medical aid funds, pension funds etc. Married spouses also had a reciprocal duty of support under the common law.

Domestic partnerships have never been prohibited by South African law, but nor have they enjoyed any noteworthy recognition or protection by the law.

The South African Courts have on occasion come to the assistance of formerly married couples and couples in domestic partnerships by deciding that an express or implied universal partnership exists between the couple. The problem is that it is extremely difficult to prove such a partnership in South African Law.

The only way to be protected in our law is to enter into a cohabitation agreement. Such an agreement clarifies the expectations of the partners and it also serve as an early warning of future problems. A cohabitation agreement will determine what would happen to property and assets of the couple if they should decide to separate. The agreement is, however, not enforceable in so far as third parties are concerned.

With regard to children, the Children’s Act 38 of 2005 provides that the father of a child who is not married to the child’s mother acquires responsibilities and rights. These responsibilities and rights include caring for the child, maintaining contact with the child, acting as a guardian of the child, and contributing to the maintenance of the child. Notably, a parent to a child born out of wedlock, regardless of whether he or she lives with that child at the birth of the child, has a duty to maintain that child. Thus there is an absolute legal duty to maintain a child irrespective of their living arrangements.

Cohabitation Agreements

Basically a cohabitation agreement regulates rights and duties between the partners. It could almost be compared to an antenuptial contract entered into prior to the conclusion of a civil marriage. The agreement can provide for the division and distribution of assets upon dissolution, for instance the formal agreement may set out:

• The rights and obligations towards each other;

• The respective financial contributions to the joint home;

• Clarify arrangements regarding ownership of property that they may purchase jointly;

• The division of their jointly-owned assets should they separate.

An agreement such as this will be legally binding as long as it contains no provisions that are immoral or illegal. If there is no agreement on the dissolution of a domestic partnership agreement, a party would only be entitled to retain those assets which he or she has purchased and owns and further would be entitled to share in the assets proportionately in terms of the contribution which they have made to the partnership.

Problems arise with the enforcement of a domestic partnership agreement – express or implied – where the partner being sued is still legally married to a third party. It has been argued that in such cases domestic partnership agreements violate public policy to the extent that they impair the community of property rights (where applicable) of the lawful married spouse.

Domestic Partnerships Bill of 2008

The Bill is still at its formulation stages and it remains to be seen how it is to be implemented. In the current constitutional dispensation it is unlikely that a partner will be left in despair taking into account the Domestic Partnerships Bill.

Bertus Preller is a Divorce and Family Law Attorney who acts in Divorce matters in Cape Town, Johannesburg, Durban and Pretoria and has more than 20 years experience in law and 13 years as a practising attorney. He specializes in Family law and Divorce Law at Abrahams and Gross Attorneys Inc. in Cape Town. Bertus is also the Family Law expert on Health24.com and on the expert panel of Law24.com. His areas of expertise are Divorce Law, Family Law, Divorce Mediation, Custody (care and contact) of children, same sex marriages, unmarried fathers rights, domestic violence matters and international divorce law.

DIVORCE AND FAMILY LAW ATTORNEY CONSULTS IN CAPE TOWN, JOHANNESBURG, PRETORIA AND DURBAN

DIVORCE AND FAMILY LAW ATTORNEY CONSULTS IN CAPE TOWN, JOHANNESBURG, PRETORIA AND DURBAN

Bertus Preller is a Family and Divorce Law Attorney at Abrahams and Gross Inc. and offers expert advice and assistance in all aspects of divorce, separation and family matters. Due to demand he is also now offering weekly consultations in Johannesburg, Durban and Pretoria on all family law related matters. He offers a broad knowledge and years of experience of the whole range of family law issues and consider with you how best to resolve and help you to achieve your aims.

When considering children matters, he aims to assist you in resolving matters in a way that reflects the best interests of the children. His team can help you in preparing agreements to reflect what you would wish to happen should your relationship break down and can help you deal with any litigation arising either from divorce or break down of a relationship.

Whether advising in the context of divorce or separation his team recognise and understands the level of stress and emotional trauma that accompanies the breakdown of a marriage. There approach is to advise and assist in a sympathetic but objective manner. The team are sensitive to the very personal issues involved and are able to recommend suitably qualified professional counsellors/mediators, where appropriate.

DIVORCE

Married couples can dissolve their marriage through divorce. This ends the marriage and the divorced parties can then legally marry again. The divorce process will depend on whether the marriage is a civil marriage or a customary marriage. Civil marriages gets dissolved according to the rules and procedures set out in the South African Divorce Act. Marriages in terms of African Customary Law are dissolved according to the civil law but some of the consequences are determined by custom and tradition. Muslim and Hindi marriages are dissolved in terms of the rites and rituals of the religion.

There are a number of issues that need to be addressed in a divorce, including:

• custody of the children
• access to the children
• maintenance
• dividing up property
• Contested Divorces

Contested Divorces are when the Parties involved cannot reach an agreement. A contested divorce can last anything between 3 months to 3 years and can be extremely expensive financially and emotionally draining.
Many Contested Divorce cases still do not go on Trial and are settled long before they end up in Court. It is extremely difficult to assess the costs of a Contested Divorce, for these matters his team would bill at an affordable hourly rate – as do the other Professional Practitioners who will become involved in this matter – for example Advocates, Psychologists, Private Investigators and the like.

The team is extremely flexible on fees when they act  in a Contested Divorce and negotiate our fees with due cognisance of the client’s income and what the client can afford. Client’s also know exactly what they are in for to enable right from the start.

Uncontested Divorces

This is by far the least expensive process to get divorced and recommended if you have been married for a short time, you don’t have children, you don’t have many assets, and you can talk to each other and reach agreement on the settlement. eDivorce is a DIY divorce servive founded by Bertus Preller. The eDivorce process has two Divorce Plans from which you can choose:

The Silver Plan – R 950 + Sheriff fee of between R 100 – R 150

• All your divorce forms – completed for you by the eDivorce platform and checked by divorce experts

• Step-by-Step Guide -W ritten in plain English and easy to follow

• Fast Service – Documents delivered within 24 hours guaranteed

The Gold Plan – Managed Divorce Service – R 6 000 all inclusive

• The price you pay is fixed from the start of your case and includes everything you will need.
• Why choose our Gold Plan Managed Divorce Service?
• No complicated form filling – We will do that for you.
• All your required divorce documents-Prepared and completed by divorce specialists
• 7 day a week service- We are open when it is convenient for you.
• All documents filed at court for you – We deal with all the filing and admin.
• Settlement Agreements are catered for- We can help you, with or without children
• Get a Free Will – For both Husband and Wife if you need one.
• Divorce in 4 to 6 weeks -Fast service guaranteed.
• Attorney supervised – All services supervised by an Attorney
• Appearance at Court – We appoint an Attorney or Advocate to appear on your behalf at Court.
• Professional and Trustworthy
• Save over R 2000 – Fixed fee for all the work

DIVORCE MEDIATION

The court system is the way disputes are decided, but there are now more effective and very different ways of resolving conflict than just going through our courts. Mediation is a voluntary and confidential process in which a mediator facilitates communication between the parties, assists them in identifying the issues to be settled and helping them reach a mutually agreeable resolution for their dispute. We specialize in mediating divorce and family issues.

Mediation can guide a couple through the many complex processes of divorce and can help them to make decisions regarding the division of their assets, custody, visitation rights and child support. We can also mediate and draft a Parenting Plan, offering a framework for divorced parents to help them to stay close to their children after the inevitable separation.

MAINTENANCE

We assist clients in both maintenance claims in regard to a spouse as well as the children. When a couple get divorced, one party is often in a much better financial position than the other. In order for a court to award maintenance to a spouse there must be a need for such maintenance and an ability to pay. In case of maintenance of children both parents have a duty to support their children having due regard to their financial positions.

RULE 43 APPLICATIONS

We assist clients in obtaining maintenance pending the finalisation of the divorce proceedings. A Rule 43 Application is an interim application which is brought mainly in cases of contested divorces in order to obtain interim relief pending finalisation of the divorce. The relief which can be requested include maintenance for the wife, maintenance for the children, interim custody and control or access to the children and interim contributions towards legal costs.

MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY & PROPRIETARY CLAIMS

We assist clients with advice regarding the proprietary claims in their marriage. In a marriage in community of property, division of the joint estate is a natural consequence of a divorce. Forfeiture of benefits of the marriage in community of property can however be claimed by a party. The court would have regard to various factors i.e. the duration of the marriage, circumstances leading to the breakdown, misconduct of one of the parties etc.
Where the marriage is out of community of property specifically excluding the cruel system and entered into after 1 November 1994, on dissolution of the marriage in essence each spouse retains his or her own separate assets. There are, however various other potential claims which may be instituted based on moneys loaned and advanced, universal partnerships etc. Where a marriage is out of community of property without the accrual and entered before 1 November 1984 a redistribution order in terms of section 7 (3) of the divorce Act can potentially be claimed by a successful party. In order to be successful, a party must satisfy the court that he or she contributed directly or indirectly to the increase of the estate of the other.

Where the marriage is out of community of property subject to the accrual system the net assets of each spouse is determined. Any assets specifically excluded from the operation of the accrual in the Antenuptial Contract are excluded from the calculation.

Any commencement value, increase in accordance with the rise in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from date of marriage to date of divorce, is deducted from the accrual to each party’s estate. The net results (estates) of each party are considered and the lesser net accrual deducted from the greater.

The net difference between the parties is then divided in two or in such other ratio as the parties may have agreed in their Antenuptial Contract and the party showing the greater accrual shall pay the other such amount in settlement of the patrimonial consequences of the marriage.

FAMILY – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND ABUSE INTERDICTS

We assist clients in obtaining protection orders under the domestic violence act in cases where domestic violence has been committed. Domestic violence includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, and emotional, verbal and psychological abuse.

It further includes intimidation, harassment, stalking, and damage to property, entry into someone’s residence without consent where the parties do not share the same residence or any other controlling or abusive behaviour towards the complainant.

VISITATION – CUSTODY AND ACCESS

We assist clients in every aspect of obtaining custody, access and/or visitation rights as well as drafting proper parenting plans in terms of the new Children’s Act. We also assist clients to obtain endorsement of Settlement Agreements at the family advocate where children’s rights are at stake.

ADOPTION

Adopting a child in South Africa is a complex matter. We work in conjunction with social workers in private practice who offers personalised and professional services four South African and International adoptions.

COHABITATION AGREEMENTS

In an age when one out of every three marriages fails, parties with a trail of prior relationships and marriages behind them may prefer to live together, rather than get married to each other. These couples and same-sex or heterosexual partners who choose not to get married should sign a domestic partnership ( life partnership or cohabitation) agreement to protect themselves should their relationship come to an end.

PARENTING PLANS

We assist both divorced couples and unmarried couples with formulating parenting plans that is in the best interest of their minor children.

PRIVATE INVESTIGATIONS

We assist clients in investigations regarding matrimonial services such as a cheating spouse. We formed an alliance with a reputable private investigation organisation which is based nationally who can investigate any matter notwithstanding whether it is of a matrimonial or financial nature.

Bertus Preller is a Divorce and Family Law Attorney in Cape Town and has more than 20 years experience in law and 13 years as a practising attorney. He specializes in Family law and Divorce Law at Abrahams and Gross Attorneys Inc. in Cape Town. Bertus is also the Family Law expert on Health24.com and on the expert panel of Law24.com. His areas of expertise are Divorce Law, Family Law, Divorce Mediation, Custody (care and contact) of children, same sex marriages, unmarried fathers rights, domestic violence matters and international divorce law.

Cohabitation Agreements in South Africa

Cohabitation Agreements

None of the consequences of a marriage automatically ensue if partners simply live together. Thus life partners do not automatically have the right to share in the other’s property during or after the relationship. Life partners are able to use contracts to achieve a measure of protection as against each other as well as against third parties. They may for example purchase assets jointly, or jointly enter into lease agreements, credit agreements etc. in such cases the terms of each contract will determine the rights, duties and obligations of each of the life partners. Usually the life partners are the joint owners of the assets acquired and joint debtors in respect of the obligations incurred.

Where the life partners are the joint owners neither of them can exclude the other from using or controlling such assets. Unless they have entered into a partnership agreement either of them may alienate his/her own share of the jointly owned assets without the other’s consent. If the life partnership breaks down and the life partners can’t agree how to divide the assets either of them may institute the action communi dividundo in which event the court will then appoint a receiver or liquidator to divide the assets.

It is best that life partners regulate their rights in terms of a cohabitation agreement. In this agreement they may for example undertake that they will maintain each other while the relationship lasts, agree to posy separation maintenance, regulate ownership of the property each of them owned before the start of the relationship, agree on property acquired after the relationship started, agree on occupation of the common home during the relationship and after termination and so forth.

Partners living together should enter into a cohabitation agreement. I have dealt with numerous disputes over the years where partners terminated a relationship with or without an agreement in place and it is usually where there is no agreement in place that the turmoil starts.

Bertus Preller

Family and Divorce Law Attorney

Abrahams and Gross Inc.