Both spouses contribute to this estate, whether through assets, liabilities, or retirement savings.
Upon divorce, the estate is divided equally, with each party entitled to 50% of the assets, unless
a specific legal order dictates otherwise. However, the Divorce Act, particularly Section 9(1),
allows a court to exercise discretion in ordering the forfeiture of patrimonial benefits to one party
in favor of the other, either wholly or partially. This article explores the circumstances under
which such forfeiture may be ordered, using a recent case to illustrate how this principle is
applied.
What is Forfeiture of Patrimonial Benefits?
Under Section 9(1) of the Divorce Act, when a marriage breaks down irretrievably, the court
may make an order that one party forfeits some or all of their patrimonial benefits from the
marriage. The court considers several factors in making this determination, including the
duration of the marriage, the reasons for the breakdown of the relationship, and any
substantial misconduct by either party. The key question for the court is whether one party
would unduly benefit if no forfeiture is ordered. This concept is especially significant in cases
where there is a clear imbalance in the contributions or misconduct of the parties involved.
The Legal Grounds for Forfeiture
A court has the discretion to grant a forfeiture order if it finds that one party’s actions have
caused the marriage to break down and, without forfeiture, they would unjustly benefit. The
court will typically examine:
1. The Duration of the Marriage: Shorter marriages may be more likely to result in
forfeiture, especially where one party has made a minimal contribution to the joint estate.
2. The Circumstances Leading to the Breakdown: If the breakdown of the marriage is
due to misconduct, such as infidelity or abuse, the court may be inclined to order
forfeiture.
3. Substantial Misconduct: Acts such as financial neglect, abuse, or deceit that contribute
to the breakdown of the marriage can lead to forfeiture.
Case Study: N.A.M v M.S.M
In the case of N.A.M v M.S.M, the plaintiff sought a decree of divorce and requested that the
defendant forfeit his 50% share in her pension fund. The defendant filed a counterclaim, seeking
an equal division of assets and spousal maintenance. He also disputed the reasons given by
the plaintiff for the marriage’s breakdown.
The parties married in 2017, and one child was born from the marriage. While primary residence
and contact with the child were not contested, significant disputes arose regarding the division
of assets and allegations of misconduct. The plaintiff argued that the defendant refused to seek
employment and had failed to provide financially for the family. She also accused him of
infidelity and physical and emotional abuse.
The defendant, however, countered by accusing the plaintiff of gross misconduct, alleging that
she abused alcohol and neglected her responsibilities, which led to the breakdown of the
marriage. He further claimed that he had contributed to the joint estate by allowing the plaintiff to
live in his family home rent-free.
Court’s Findings and Ruling
The High Court in Bloemfontein was tasked with determining the reasons for the breakdown of
the marriage, the division of the estate, potential forfeiture, spousal maintenance, and the costs
of the action. The court found the defendant’s testimony to be “evasive and uncertain,” noting
that he had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims. His lack of contributions to
the joint estate and his failure to substantiate his request for spousal maintenance further
weakened his case.
The plaintiff’s allegations of misconduct, particularly the defendant’s refusal to seek employment
and his abusive behavior, were deemed credible by the court. The court determined that the
defendant had made no meaningful contribution to the joint estate and had engaged in
substantial misconduct. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the
forfeiture of the defendant’s share in the pension fund.
Conclusion
In marriages in community of property, the division of assets upon divorce is usually
straightforward, with each party entitled to an equal share. However, when there is significant
misconduct, such as infidelity or financial neglect, the court has the discretion to order the
forfeiture of one party’s patrimonial benefits. In the N.A.M v M.S.M case, the court found that the
defendant would unduly benefit from the joint estate due to his lack of contributions and his
misconduct, leading to a ruling in favor of the plaintiff.
This case highlights the importance of providing adequate evidence to support claims of
misconduct and the need for individuals to act in good faith within the marriage to avoid the risk
of forfeiting their patrimonial benefits in the event of a divorce.
0 Comments