Woman loses her half of joint estate after 22 years of marriage in community of property

A woman married in community of property 22 years ago has ended up having to forfeit her 50% stake in the joint estate while getting divorced from her estranged husband in Gauteng.

Reasons contributing to this month's Pretoria high court judgment include her having abandoned the matrimonial home, failing to contribute to the upbringing of her children and having an extramarital affair.

A penchant for purchasing fine clothes and upgrading vehicles — though she earned less at work than her husband — also saw her forfeit the 50% pension fund benefits held in her estranged husband's Government Employees Pension Fund.

The now ex-husband said he paid the bond for their home and accused his ex-wife of being unfaithful — which she did not deny. He argued she had contributed only a television set and music system to the estate.

According to the 35-page judgment, the woman left the matrimonial home in 2012, leaving her husband to raise their children alone. Their youngest was two.

“[The ex-husband] instituted divorce proceedings on the grounds that [his wife] ... had several extramarital relationships, and this has been a contributing factor to the irretrievable breakdown of their marriage relationship,” the judgment reads.

“In addition, the [ex-husband] contends that during the period they lived together, the [wife] did not contribute to the maintenance and improvement of the common home, repayments of the mortgage bond, rates and taxes, or contributed to the upbringing of their children. Consequently, the [ex-husband] asks this court to order that the [ex-wife] forfeit her matrimonial benefits arising from the marriage in community of property.”

The woman argued in court that she had left the matrimonial home, husband and children because she feared for her life.

“[She said her ex-husband was] abusive towards her and had at one stage threatened to kill her,” the judgment reads.

“Consequently, she moved out of the common house for her safety. According to the [ex-wife], the [ex-husband] has denied her access to the property nor is she able to see the children. The [ex-wife] stood her ground and stated that household chores were shared between the parties and that where she lacked it was because of circumstances beyond her control.”

She told the court the relationship “irretrievably broke down because of the [ex-husband’s] extramarital affairs with several women”. She urged the court to divide the joint estate equally.

But the court ruled her testimony about financial contribution to the joint estate was hypocritical, noting she had upgraded cars, and disputed her claim about having to leave for her safety.

The couple married in 2001 and are co-holders of “full parental rights of the minor child”. They also have a fully paid house.

The husband told the court that he had been on his wife’s medical aid, but she removed him without his knowledge after her departure.

“The [ex-husband] testified that there was an arrangement as to how the household expenses were to be shared. On one hand, he was to pay for the bond and one child’s nursery school fees, and buy groceries. On the other hand, she was to pay the property rates and taxes, and one of the children’s school fees. There were only two children then. The [ex-husband’s] testimony is that he kept to the arrangement. According to him, his [ex-wife], despite the arrangement, did not contribute anything towards property rates and taxes or the children’s upbringing. She contributed briefly to one of the children’s school fees but stopped,” the judgment reads.

The ex-husband told the court that his wife “only bought clothes for one child towards the end of a certain January when she had obtained her bonus from work”. He testified that he “avoided confronting [his wife] and opted to take over all the household expenses”.

“According to him, whenever he asked her about how she spent her money, she would not provide answers. He testified that his wife had a passion for fashion and liked expensive clothes. He said she stopped using the Edgar’s clothing account and opened a Woolworths account. To this end, she would take things on credit and fail to pay them off. He testified that he would always step in to help her settle her debts.”

The husband testified that he improved their home and paid for the paving and tiles alone.

“The [ex-wife] only fitted an incomplete kitchen unit with a loan of about R25,000 that she took. However, he asserts that at some stage he also had to pay those who were installing the kitchen, as the [ex-wife] was no longer able to do so,” the judgment reads.

“The [ex-husband] testified that in 2006 ... he saw the [wife’s] car and her colleague’s car parked in proximity ... the two were engaging in an extramarital affair. According to him, the same car was used to pick up the [ex-wife] from their house. According to the [ex-husband], the [ex-wife] later confessed to him] that she was having an affair with the said colleague for about four months. The [ex-husband] testified that the [ex-wife] confessed to conducting the affair while at work and at times would visit the said colleague at his house.”

The court heard that the marriage was irreparable.

“The marriage relationship between the parties has broken down irretrievably and there is no reasonable prospect of restoration of a normal marriage relationship,” the judgment reads.

The ex-husband was found to be a “candid witness whose evidence was clear, credible and reliable in all respects”.

“There is no basis for this court not to accept his testimony as the truth. However, I cannot say the same for the [ex-wife]. She was not a reliable witness and contradicted herself on one or more aspects under cross-examination,” the court ruled.

“The [ex-wife] was evasive in her answers and mostly could not remember the things that she contributed to their house. Her testimony is unreliable and riddled with improbabilities. Accordingly, her evidence falls to be rejected.”

The court granted a divorce.

The court also ordered that the ex-wife forfeit her 50% benefits in their home and the man became the sole owner of the property. She also forfeited her 50% pension fund benefits held in the husband’s pension fund.