The requirements for a redistribution order are: The spouse who seeks redistribution must have contributed directly or indirectly to the maintenance or increase of the other estate during the subsistence of the marriage.(1) spouse’s The court must be satisfied that, by the reason of such contribution, it is equitable and just to make a redistribution order.(1) In Beaumont v Beaumont (1) the spouses were married in 1964 and entered into an antenuptial contract which excluded community of property and community of profit and loss. Twenty years later, the husband sued the wife for divorce. At the time of divorce, his estate was R450 000 and his wife estate had only R10 000. During the subsistence of the marriage, his wife kept house for him and the children and fulfilled all the tasks of a wife and mother. She also assisted him in his business without receiving any remuneration.(1 mark for the facts of the case) When the husband sued for divorce, the wife instituted a counterclaim for a redistribution order in terms of section 7(3). The court granted her claim and awarded her R150 000 of his estate and maintenance. The court applied the one-third rule or guideline.(1) In light of the prerequisites and the requirements of section 7(3) and the decision in Beaumont v Beaumont, Mrs Steenekamp will succeed in a claim for a redistribution order against Mr Steenekamp.(1) There are 13 possible marks for this 10 mark question. (See the prescribed textbook pp 132-139, the prescribed casebook pp 207-213 and the study guide pp 82-83.)
The requirements for a redistribution order are: The spouse who seeks redistribution must have contributed directly or indirectly to the maintenance or increase of the other spouse’s estate during the subsistence of the marriage.(1) The court must be satisfied that, by the reason of such contribution, it is equitable and just to make a redistribution order.(1) In Beaumont v Beaumont (1) the spouses were married in 1964 and entered into an antenuptial contract which excluded community of property and community of profit and loss. Twenty years later, the husband sued the wife for divorce. At the time of divorce, his estate was R450 000 and his wife estate had only R10 000. During the subsistence of the marriage, his wife kept house for him and the children and fulfilled all the tasks of a wife and mother. She also assisted him in his business without receiving any remuneration.(1 mark for the facts of the case) When the husband sued for divorce, the wife instituted a counterclaim for a redistribution order in terms of section 7(3). The court granted her claim and awarded her R150 000 of his estate and maintenance. The court applied the one-third rule or guideline.(1) In light of the prerequisites and the requirements of section 7(3) and the decision in Beaumont v Beaumont, Mrs Steenekamp will succeed in a claim for a redistribution order against Mr Steenekamp.(1) There are 13 possible marks for this 10 mark question. (See the prescribed textbook pp 132-139, the prescribed casebook pp 207-213 and the study guide pp 82-83.)
PVL2601-lecturer_questions_2013.docx