The Eastern Cape High Court in Mthatha has rejected a woman’s bid to take control of her dead husband’s property after she tried to wrest it from his second wife.
Gallo Images/Jack Stander
- The Eastern Cape High Court in Mthatha ruled in favor of a woman in an appeal between her and her deceased husband’s first wife over the distribution of his estate.
- The first wifeHe tried to claim his assets on the basis of a mustered will.
- But his second wife claimed that he died without leaving a will.
The Eastern Cape High Court in Mthatha has rejected a woman’s bid to take control of her dead husband’s property after she tried to wrest it from his second wife.
According to court records, the woman, who is referred to as the first wife, married the deceased in June 1978 in a civil marriage and in a joint property. The marriage resulted in three children.
In March 1988, the couple decided to have a rally. A collective will is executed when two or more people join their assets together and form a single estate, usually for the purpose of bequeathing the assets to clearly identified heirs.
They separated in June 2003 and entered into a settlement agreement, according to a ruling written by acting judge Mvuzou Nutisi.
Notyesi wrote:
“The settlement agreement was about the distribution of the estate, as their marriage was in joint property. The net effect of the settlement agreement was to dissolve the joint estate.”
second wife
According to court records, the deceased married his second wife in 1984 in a customary ceremony and three children were born from this marriage.
“As a result of the divorce of the decedent and the first wife in 2003, the second wife continued to be the sole wife of the decedent. Their customary marriage was in joint property because there were no prenuptial agreements that excluded joint property,” Notyesi said.
After the man died in 2016, the second wife contacted the chief justice to obtain an executive letter.
She tells the master that her husband died intestate (without leaving a will).
The master presented her with a letter of authorization and she began to manage the estate.
However, the first wife, with the assistance of Standard Executors and Trustees Limited, requested and obtained a Letter of Execution from Mr.
Read | Stop fighting over money until you’re broke, judge urges divorced parents–and their lawyers
She submitted a copy of the collective will in order to obtain a copy of the letter, which prompted the master to revoke the mandate given to the second wife.
Then the first wife wrote a letter requesting a detailed list of the deceased’s assets from his second wife.
She claimed that she was entitled to do so because there was no other will that would render the mobilized will void.
But the second wife did not agree to the request.
Instead, she replied that her husband had died intestate and successfully challenged the validity of the mass will.
The dispute was brought to court in May and the verdict was announced earlier this month.
to rule
In the ruling, Notici said the first problem with the collective will was that the first wife and the decedent were divorced.
he added:
“During the divorce the first wife and the decedent dissolved their joint property and distributed the assets on the Deed of Settlement. This disposition, in my view, rendered their collective will null and void, for there were no united assets for the purposes of a collective will.”
He agreed to the first wife’s request that there were no funds in the estate, as they were distributed during the divorce, and said, “The will is invalidated on this basis alone.”
He added that the original will was not produced.
“The deceased died in 2016. A copy of the will was issued only in 2018. I cannot accept a copy of the collective will in these circumstances,” he said.
He determined that the deceased was married to his second wife in a common property under customary law, and found it difficult to determine what remains of the assets of the deceased from the assets of his second wife.
“The second wife’s version that she owns the estate with the deceased has not been challenged, and I accept it, taking into account the 13-year period from the date of the first wife’s divorce.
He rejected the first wife’s request that the collective will was to specify the deceased’s final wishes after his death and added:
It should be noted that the first wife only appeared in connection with the deceased’s inheritance at the end of 2017, even though the deceased died in 2016. I find this opportunistic on her own. It is amazing that the first wife, who has not been living with the deceased since approximately 13 years, it will simply appear only to claim the assets of the deceased in circumstances in which her own assets were taken from the joint estate.”
Notyesi declared the collective will null and void, and the Chief Justice ordered the removal of the first wife as executor of the deceased’s estate.
An expense order has also been issued for the first wife.