Numerous divorce orders are being granted on a daily basis, merely stating “Division of the Joint Estate”. Should this be the case, the consequence of this order is that the immovable property should be sold and the proceeds divided between the parties, alternatively one of the parties must purchase the other parties half share in the property. An order such as the one above, has left many divorcees extremely frustrated. The frustration usually stems from one of the exes, refusing or delaying the sale of the property, or being unable to purchase the others half share. This inherently leads to the the occupying ex staying in occupation at the expense of the other spouse.
It is therefore paramount that the settlement agreement stipulates:
- by when the property should be sold,
- who is allowed to remain in occupation of the property,
- when the occupying party should vacate the property, and
- who will be liable for the costs relating thereto.
It is also common practice that the party who obtains the half share interest in the property pay the costs relating thereto. The parties can however agree to a different arrangement regarding costs.
This may sound like an idiotic or rather unemotional, attorney fuelled, life lesson, but should one ever get divorced, these are the things one needs to keep in mind and discuss with your advisor. The frustration, or rather emotional turmoil after the divorce can actually be shortened dramatically by getting the correct advice before the time. Be smart, make the right choice and implement same.
The effect of a sale on a management mandate agreement Is the purchaser of a property with a tenant in the premises duty-bound to perform in terms of the former landlord’s obligations towards the lease agreement, or in terms of a mandate in the case of a management mandate agreement? The lease agreement remains in […]
Obtaining court dates from the High Courts in Lockdown Level 1 As much as we, as legal practitioners, have got used to attending to court virtually and working with the new online court system, called CaseLines; the legal profession is still experiencing extreme difficulties. The latest court directives allow us to issue new proceedings at […]
Does Section 4(5)(c) of the Rental Housing Act contradict the principle of huur gaat voor koop? The legal principle of huur gaat voor koop was established within Roman Dutch Law and has, since the adoption of Roman Dutch Law as the foundation of the South African legal system, been one of the cornerstone principles governing property […]
Why were these regulations declared unconstitutional by the High Court? What does this mean? On 2 June 2020 the High Court handed down a judgement in the matter of De Beer v COTGA. News of this judgement spread in the media and on social media like wildfire, with headings like “Lockdown Regulations Unconstitutional”; as much […]
LEVEL 4 REGULATIONS ON EVICTIONS The Alert Level 4 Regulations were released to the public explaining exactly what Level 4 will entail for the South African public. One of the regulations, specifically Regulation 19, deals with the prohibition of evictions and has a big effect on our property industry. The Regulation reads as follows: A […]
No regulations of any kind have been implemented to authorise tenants to refrain from paying rent. The global pandemic brought about by the COVID-19 virus has thrust South Africa into one of the most unfamiliar and uncertain times in our history, the likes of which never before experienced. Government has, in response to the virus, […]