Maintenance is that part of the divorce order which is not a final determination of the rights of the parties, however, as long as there exists a Court order for maintenance for a certain amount, the person against whom a maintenance order was granted must abide by that order. In cases where the aforementioned party does not pay the maintenance or even fails to pay the entire amount, arrears will accumulate.

The person who is entitled to the maintenance may approach the Maintenance Court for an Application for Enforcement of Maintenance or Other Order in terms of Section 26 of the Maintenance Act, 1998. A party failing to pay maintenance will be in contempt of Court and would thus be guilty of a criminal offence. The party entitled to the maintenance may apply for an S31(1) Form which would result in the matter being dealt with in the Criminal Court.

However, the Maintenance Officer is aware that it is not possible for someone’s financial position to remain the same since the time of which the order is made until the party who is entitled to maintenance reaches a point of applying for an enforcement of maintenance order. Situations change, in some instances people become unemployed which may result in the party against whom the order was made, not being able to pay the same amount of maintenance. Another factor to consider is the fact that the needs of the person who is entitled to maintenance might change.

The party against whom the maintenance order is brought but is failing to pay because he no longer can afford to pay the amount stipulated in the order can bring an application for Substitution or Discharge of Existing Maintenance Order Complaint in terms of Section 6(1)(b) of the Maintenance Act, 1998. This person against whom this application is brought will receive a subpoena to be at Court on a certain date and time. The aforementioned party will have to present 3 months’ latest pay slips, 3 months’ bank statements, a list of proof of all expenses and a copy of his/her ID book.

The party bringing the application will also be requested to present documents to the Court. These documents may include: bank statements, salary slips, statements of monthly income and expenses, a list of movable/immovables and credit card statements.

The party will be subpoenaed to appear in front of the Maintenance Officer and their legal representatives may be present. This meeting with the Maintenance Officer is of a less rigid nature than appearing in Court in front of a magistrate and is of a more inquisitorial nature.

The Maintenance Officer will act as a neutral party. The legal representatives will go through the expenses of each party and find expenses on which the paying party can save money and vice versa in order to make payment easier and to make sure the other party’s luxurious lifestyle isn’t being maintained whilst the paying party hardly makes ends meet.

The Maintenance Officer will take certain factors into account when making an order. These factors may include: the standard of living of the parties, the financial position of both parties and the age of the parties. The Maintenance Officer will make an order which the parties will have to abide by.

In some instances, the father cannot pay the maintenance to his children himself and in those cases, the grandparents of the father will have to pay the maintenance of the grandchild as they also have a duty to support a minor child.

Reference List:

• The Divorce Act 70 of 1979
• The Maintenance Act 99 of 1998

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

The post DIVORCE, MAINTENANCE AND THE LAW appeared first on Schnetler's Inc.

The South Gauteng High Court ruled that the common law defence of reasonable chastisement is not in line with the Constitution and no longer applies in our law. This means disciplining your child in the form of a spanking is no longer considered legal within South Africa.

How did it come to this?

It has always been considered a crime of assault to hit a child, however, if a parent was charged, they would be able to raise a special defence which said that if the chastisement, or discipline, was reasonable they would not be found guilty.

The special defence of chastisement has been removed by the Court, which was to bring the common law in line with the Constitution. This followed an appeal by a father who had been found guilty of assault because he beat his 13-year-old son. The way in which he beat his son was deemed to exceed the bounds of reasonable chastisement.

The Court said that it wanted to guide and support parents in finding more positive and effective ways of disciplining children. The Minister of Social Development, Bathabilie Dlamini, also agreed that the defence of reasonable chastisement is unconstitutional. The Court said that protecting children was particularly important in the context of the high levels of child abuse and violence that pervade our society.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE).

References:

• YG v S (A263/2016) [2017] ZAGPJHC 290 (19 October 2017)
• “It’s now illegal to spank your child in SA”. https://www.enca.com/south-africa/it-is-now-illegal-to-spank-your-child-in-sa

The post SPANKING YOUR CHILD IS ILLEGAL IN SOUTH AFRICA appeared first on Schnetler's Inc.

If a married couple has decided on getting divorced, the process may seem daunting and uncomfortable. However, it can be done efficiently, but there may still be a lot of emotional difficulty involved. It’s important to note that divorce is a last resort in a marriage. If it’s a civil marriage, it needs to be dissolved by a court, and like a court case, good grounds for the divorce have to be given. Divorce isn’t a do-it-yourself matter.

What reasons are good reasons?

1. Firstly, and most importantly, you have to be absolutely certain that divorce is the only option for you and your spouse. This is because you would have to prove to a court that you and your spouse can’t live together anymore and there is no possibility of reconciliation or for you two to love one another again. An unconsciousness or mentally ill spouse, for example, could also be a valid reason for divorce.
2. Other forms of proof or grounds needed for a divorce are evidence that you and your spouse haven’t been living together for a very long period of time, one of the partner’s cheated, one partner left or that there was abuse involved in the relationship, such as physical abuse.

Steps to take

1. The first step is to prepare a summons for a court. Going through a Family Court will be cheaper than a High Court. The summons would include details such as who will have custody of the children and how the other parent will see the children, if there are children involved. Other details would include maintenance and how property will be split.
2. You can consult an attorney beforehand to help you with the divorce summons and the court proceedings. The Sheriff of the Court will serve the summons to the other spouse or ‘defendant’. In some cases, the defendant may decide to oppose the summons, in which case their attorney will send back a plea (answer to the summons).
3. The two parties may try reach a settlement agreement before the hearing. Regardless of whether or not the they have reached an agreement the case will still be heard in a court before a decree of divorce is issued. As mentioned earlier, divorce has to go through a court.
4. After the summons has been submitted to the court a hearing date will be set. A divorce order will be granted after the judge at the hearing has settled everything and confirmed what has been presented as grounds for the divorce.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE).

References:

Anderson, AM. Dodd, A. Roos, MC. 2012. “Everyone’s Guide to South African Law. Third Edition”. Zebra Press.

Westerncape.gov.za. Western Cape Government. Getting Divorced Page. [online] Available at: https://www.westerncape.gov.za/service/getting-divorced/ [Accessed 25/05/2016].

The post HOW TO GET DIVORCED IF IT’S YOUR ONLY OPTION appeared first on Schnetler's Inc.

In the recent unreported judgment in Sherwin Jerrier v Outsurance Insurance Company Limited the Pietermaritzburg High Court was faced with such a question. Mr Jerrier claimed for damages to his car caused by an accident that he was involved in on 8 January 2010.

The insured (Mr Jerrier) took out a policy in December 2008. He did not report a loss that he suffered in April 2009, after inception of his policy, to his insurer. The damage to his vehicle amounted to over R200 000 and the incident attracted further third party liability.

The specific policy as most, if not all policies do, provided that “you need to inform us immediately of any changes to your circumstances that may influence whether we give you cover, the conditions of cover or premium we charge. This includes incidents for which you do not want to claim but which may result in a claim in the future.”

As with most of our household policies, these are monthly policies, and we continuously need to make disclosure to the insurer of things such as losses or damage, moving to a new house, et cetera. The court in this instance found that the reasonable man would have concluded that the previous losses would, from a claims history perspective and also from a moral risk perspective, be indicative of a change in his circumstances. The Court found that the insurer was correct in not accepting liability for the loss suffered in January 2010.

In short, even if you do not claim, let your insurer rather know of a loss or a potential claim. Anything that may be deemed to influence the risk or would indicate a change in circumstances, such as moving to a new property, needs to be disclosed to the insurer. It is not unreasonable to expect this of the insured.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied upon as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your financial adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

The post YOUR DUTY TO DISCLOSE EVEN IF YOU DO NOT CLAIM FROM YOUR INSURER appeared first on Schnetler's Inc.

The 2008 Companies Act has been criticised, in many respects and in many quarters.  A great many of the provisions found therein are difficult to understand, and some of them are downright bizarre.

Take, for example, the business rescue dispensation created by Chapter 6 of the 2008 Companies Act.  Business rescue is, of course, a well-intentioned and potentially promising alternative to the liquidation of companies.  The liquidation process results in the destruction of the company, loss of jobs, the sale of assets frequently at a fraction of their market value.  It is a lose-lose situation.  The underlying aim of business rescue is to provide an alternative mechanism by which the company can be restored to commercial viability, which should ultimately better serve the interests of creditors, employees and other stakeholders.

To achieve this, Chapter 6 of the Companies Act provides that a company may be placed in business rescue by resolution of its board of directors, or by order of court.  A business rescue practitioner (hereinafter referred to as “the BRP”) is appointed, who has wide-ranging powers of investigation and control and who, ultimately, prepares a business rescue plan.  That plan is required, by Section 150 of the 2008 Companies Act, to list the assets and liabilities of the company, probable dividend if the company was to be liquidated, a list of shareholders, and business plan proposals which set out the steps to be taken to restore the company to the position where it can continue trading or (if that cannot be achieved) to wind up the affairs of the company in such a manner that creditors will receive a more favourable dividend than would have become payable, on liquidation.

In the course of the business rescue investigation, however, the BRP is vested with various powers which are, to say the least, perplexing.  One of these is found in Section 136(2)(a) which empowers the BRP to either partially or conditionally suspend, for the duration of the business rescue proceedings, any obligation of the company under business rescue (hereinafter referred to as “the BR company”) that arises under an agreement to which the BR company was a party, prior to the commencement of the business rescue proceedings, and which would otherwise become due during those proceedings.

The question is – how does that draconian power fit in with the well-known contractual principle of reciprocity?  Reciprocity means that, if two parties conclude a contract in which both of them have rights and obligations, Party A cannot enforce any of its rights without, at the same time, tendering to comply with its obligations.

So where does Section 136(2)(a) leave a creditor who concluded a contract with a BR company, prior to commencement of business rescue, under which both parties have outstanding rights and obligations?  Is the BRP able to suspend, for the duration of the business rescue proceedings, the obligations of the BR company but, at the same time, require the creditor to carry out the creditor’s obligations, without receiving any counter-performance from the BR company?

Take, for example, a distributorship agreement under which the manufacturer of products has, prior to BRP, appointed the BR company as a sole distributor in South Africa, on condition that the BR company markets and advertises the product in question, thereby ensuring that it acquires a reputation and market share.  May the BRP simply suspend those marketing and advertising obligations, but still insist that the BR company carry on acting as exclusive distributor?  Can the BRP of a franchise company under business rescue decide to suspend the obligation to pay royalties to the franchisor, but insist that the franchisee nevertheless be entitled to carry on the franchise operation?  Many other examples will illustrate why, in a commercial setting, it would be grossly unfair to expect a party to continue performing under a contract, although the obligations of the other party are suspended.

The courts have to thus far not had occasion to pronounce upon the meaning and effect of Section 136(2)(a), or how it will impact on contracts which create reciprocal obligations.  All that one can safely say is that, in the meantime, creditors with ongoing contractual obligations with companies in business rescue are left in a state of uncertainty and vulnerability, and exposed to a mechanism which is certainly open to abuse and exploitation by companies who have been placed in business rescue.

Clarification from the courts, or an amendment to Section 136 of the 2008 Companies Act, is urgently required.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

The post BUSINESS RESCUE PROCEEDINGS – PROBLEMS, HEADACHES AND ANOMALIES appeared first on Schnetler's Inc.

Jack Louw was used to driving fast cars – he was practically born with one foot on the accelerator. Jack was also born into a very rich family, which meant there was always money to pay for the fines he kept receiving for exceeding the speed limit. However, Jack’s luck would soon change and he might end up with more than a fine.

According to the National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996 and the Regulations published on 17 March 2000, the general speed limits are: 60 km/h on a public road within an urban area; 100 km/h on a public road outside an urban area which is not a freeway, and 120 km/h on every freeway.

Prosecution or the imposition of a spot fine is automatic if you are caught exceeding the 60km/h and general speed limits. However, if you speed in a 60km/h zone, and it is greater than 100km/h, you will not have the option of paying an admission-of-guilt fine, but will have to appear in court to answer a charge of reckless or dangerous driving and contravention of the Act.

Depending on the seriousness of the offence, you may or may not be given the alternative of an admission-of-guilt fine as opposed to having to appear in Court. An admission-of-guilt fine is a fine that a person is issued with after admitting guilt. It may seem like an easy exit to all problems. However, once admitting guilt, the person will have a criminal record.

Admission-of-guilt fines for speeding are calculated on the basis of rands per km/h in excess of the speed limit. These fines may be paid at any office of the South African Police Service in the Magisterial district where the offence occurred, by the date stipulated on the notice that will be posted to you within two weeks after you received the ticket. You must produce the ticket when paying the fine.

Should you choose not to pay the admission-of-guilt fine, but rather state your case in court, you should check the fine to ascertain the date on which you must appear in Court and the case number. Queries about the fine must be directed to the clerk of the criminal court of the Magisterial district of issue, and the actual document must accompany your query.

It is important to take notice of the speed you are driving. It may be important for you to get to your destination in time, but is it worth paying a fine, or having a criminal record? It is also important to remember that if you get a fine in a town other than your home town, you will have to travel back to that town to appear in court.

Think before admitting guilt to a speeding offence, or even better, think twice before committing an offence that would put you in that position.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

The post DON’T SPEED THROUGH LIFE appeared first on Schnetler's Inc.