Thoughts Of The Week
Where a divorce settlement agreement provides that a spouse will acquire sole ownership in the whole or a portion of property registered in the name of his or her divorced spouse, the transaction is exempt from transfer duty. Does it make a difference if this property was registered in the name of an entity? Yes, as the exemption applies only where the spouse held sole ownership in his or her personal capacity.
Thus, for example, where a property was registered in the name of a trust and was made over to a divorced spouse in terms of a settlement agreement, transfer duty is payable. Remember further that from SARS’s point of view, the ‘transaction’ occurred on the date of the divorce order, and the receiving spouse must pay the transfer duty within 6 months after that date, failing which a penalty on the outstanding amount becomes payable.
Contact us at for assistance at email@example.com.
In our law, both parents have a duty to support their child. This duty encompasses direct and indirect costs and includes educational and medical expenses, food, transport, clothing and accommodation.
But how is an amount arrived at? The amount of the maintenance is determined with reference to the parents’ financial circumstances as well as the reasonable needs of the child.
The Maintenance Act creates a platform for one parent to apply for a maintenance order against the other to enable the first mentioned parent to contribute appropriately towards their child’s expenses.
Contact us on firstname.lastname@example.org should you require assistance in any disputed maintenance claims.
With effect from 1 March 2019, interest earned on moneys invested by your attorney in a designated trust account, must be dealt with in accordance with section 86(4) of the Legal Practice Act.
This section provides that the attorney firm must pay 5% of the interest earned to the Legal Practitioners Fidelity Fund.
As agreements for the sale of immovable property often have a provision requiring the purchaser to pay the deposit to the conveyancing firm’s trust account, to be invested for the benefit of the purchaser, this new provision will impact on such deposits.
Contact your STBB conveyancer for assistance on how to reflect this new provision in your sale agreement.
Earlier this month, in a notice published in the Government Gazette, it was confirmed that the monetary jurisdiction of Small Claims Courts will be increased to R20 000 from 1 April 2019 onwards.
According to the Justice and Constitutional Development Deputy Minister, John Jeffery, the new threshold is expected to go some way towards addressing a growing tendency for plaintiffs to ‘abandon parts of their claims’ to bring them within the existing R15 000 jurisdiction of the Small Claims Courts.
These forums remain available for civil claims only and where parties represent themselves. Often, parties obtain legal advice in order to assist them to properly present their claims in this Court.
You can read more here.
Contact STBB for further assistance.
Two investors bought properties in a sectional title scheme, specifically for purposes of generating an income from short-term letting. When the properties were purchased there was no prohibition on short-term letting.
However, at an annual general meeting held during 2017, a special resolution was adopted by members of the sectional title scheme in terms of which the scheme’s conduct rules were amended to restrict members from letting out their respective units on a short-term basis (less than 3 months).
The two investors lodged a dispute with the Community Schemes Ombud Service and inter alia argued that this amendment to the scheme’s conduct rules, infringed upon their constitutionally protected rights. What was the outcome?
In an order handed down on 10 August 2018, the adjudicator stated that “the important question is whether a ban on short-term letting falls within the ambit of a Conduct Rule amendment”. In answering the aforementioned question, the adjudicator explained that, “a ban on short-term letting is an amendment on how a property is used and this has an effect on constitutional rights and property rights of an owner. This is a matter that should be dealt with at town planning and/or zoning use level”.
Accordingly, the adjudicator arrived at the conclusion that “a ban on short-term letting by way of the amendment of the Conduct Rules, instead of by way of Management Rules, was improper”, and therefore the first and second claimants were permitted to continue short-term letting their respective units.
In obiter the adjudicator explained that short-term letting cases remain a contentious point which had led to much discussion between adjudicators at the Community Schemes Ombud Service and that it would be beneficial for the High Court to deliberate upon a short-term letting matter in order to provide clarity on this contentious point.
Contact Martin Bey or Wesley Graham for assistance with short-term letting disputes.
When you make a bequest in your will to a beneficiary who is married in community of property, the inheritance will fall into the joint estate of that beneficiary and his or her spouse. If a testator seeks to avoid this result, the will must expressly state that the bequest is excluded from that beneficiary’s joint estate which he or she shares with his or her spouse.
Such an exclusion will however not protect the beneficiary from a claim by creditors of his or her spouse. The court in Du Plessis v Pienaar NO and others held that where a person in a marriage in community of property incurs a debt, his or her spouse is also liable for that debt. This means that the creditors of the beneficiary’s spouse will be entitled to bring a claim against the joint estate, as well as against such a beneficiary’s separate property, including an inheritance, in seeking settlement of their claim.
Contact STBB for assistance in the drafting of your will.
Last month, the Durban High Court granted a father the right to insist that his particulars are inserted on the birth certificate of his five-year-old son, born out of wedlock. The facts showed that the father was devoted to his son and committed to playing a meaningful role in his life. The Court has a duty to determine what is in the best interests of the child. The Judge found that “a name is an important aspect of identity and personality”. Judge Jacqui Henriques ordered that the child’s surname must be double-barrelled on the birth certificate to give recognition to both his birth names. She stated ‘the alteration of his name can only be in the best interests of the child… a double-barrelled surname recognising both parents and their commitment to him can hardly be said not to be in his best interests.’
This is an important step forward in broadening the rights of unmarried fathers.
Contact STBB should you require assistance in this regard.
The Department of Labour yesterday announced the wage increases for all domestic workers, effective from 3 December 2018, as follows:
Those working more than 27 ordinary hours per week:
|Area||Metro Areas||Other Areas|
Those working 27 ordinary hours or less per week:
|Area||Metro Areas||Other Areas|
Contact STBB for further assistance.
The Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act obliges the body corporate to maintain a scheme’s common property. Owners are in turn required to repair and maintain their sections.
Is the body corporate, as a result, automatically responsible to arrange and pay for the repair of damage to an owner’s section if it results from some defect or failure in the common property? The short answer is no, as the Act does not automatically hold the body corporate liable for consequential (ensuing) damages.
An owner may therefore request the body corporate to pay for the damages caused by defects arising out of the common property, but if the body corporate refuses to pay, the owner must then proceed to either enforce their common law rights, or the owner may consider filing an application with the Ombud against the body corporate for an order requiring the them to have the repairs and maintenance carried out.
When X, recently divorced, approached her conveyancer with an instruction to register transfer of the property that was awarded to her in the divorce settlement, she was speechless when she was advised that transfer duty will be payable. This because she was advised previously that the Transfer Duty Act exempted the transfer of property to a divorced spouse in terms of a divorce order.
The advice was correct. However, what differentiated X’s position was the fact that the property was registered in the name of a trust. The exemption in the Act applies only where the one spouse held sole ownership in the whole or a portion of the property, which is then acquired by the other divorced spouse in terms of the court order. In X’s instance, transfer duty was therefore payable by her as her divorced spouse was not the owner or co-owner, but the trust.
In addition, from SARS’s point of view, the ‘transaction’ occurred on the date that the divorce order was granted and X is therefore liable to pay transfer duty within 6 months after that date, failing which a penalty on the outstanding amount at a rate of 10% per year becomes payable. Make sure to ventilate all the details of your settlement with your divorce attorney, so that you are aware of the implications.
Contact our Family Law team at email@example.com.