In De Bruyn v The Master of the High Court, the Supreme Court of Appeal (‘the SCA’) recently upheld the Master’s refusal to prohibit a surviving spouse’s maintenance claim which effectively exhausted the estate available for distribution. Although the deceased had bequeathed immovable property to his daughter, subject to a lifelong usufruct in favour of his wife, the liquidation and distribution account allocated the property to the wife in settlement of her maintenance claim.
The facts of the case
The deceased passed away on 29th January 2015. He had been married to the respondent, who was nominated and appointed as executrix of his estate, for 26 years.
Under the deceased’s will, the immovable property was bequeathed to his daughter from a previous marriage – the appellant – while his wife was granted a lifelong usufruct over it. At the time of the deceased’s death, the respondent was 70 years old, had been financially supported by him throughout their marriage, and her maintenance was provided for in his will.
As surviving spouse, the respondent lodged a maintenance claim against the estate under the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act. On assessment, the actuarially calculated claim exceeded the estate’s available value. The L&D account was consequently structured so that the maintenance claim absorbed the amount otherwise available for distribution, while avoiding insolvency of the estate. Accordingly, it allocated the immovable property to the respondent in her personal capacity in settlement of the claim.
The appellant objected to the maintenance claim following which the Master of the High Court required a supplementary actuarial calculation that took the respondent’s life policies into account. After considering the amended L&D account and revised actuarial report, the Master was satisfied that the claim complied with the Act and dismissed the objection.
The appellant unsuccessfully challenged that decision in the High Court before appealing to the SCA. By the time the matter reached the SCA, she no longer contended that the respondent had no maintenance claim at all. Instead, the dispute had narrowed to the amount of the claim.
When may a surviving spouse claim maintenance?
Section 2(1) of the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act provides a surviving spouse with a claim against the deceased spouse’s estate for reasonable maintenance needs until death or remarriage, but only insofar as the survivor cannot provide for those needs from their own means and earnings. Under the law, ‘own means’ is defined to include money, property, or other financial benefits accruing to the survivor through matrimonial property law, succession, or otherwise upon the deceased’s death.
A maintenance claim is therefore not automatic merely because the parties were married. Relying on Friedrich v Smit NO, the SCA confirmed that the survivor must establish a genuine need for reasonable maintenance and an inability to adequately maintain themselves. To that end, extravagant demands fall outside statutory protection.
Section 3 of the Act requires the following factors, together with any other relevant considerations, to be taken into account:
- The amount in the estate available for distribution to heirs and legatees;
- The survivor’s existing and expected means, earning capacity, financial needs and obligations, and the subsistence of the marriage; and
- The survivor’s standard of living during the marriage and age when the deceased spouse died.
Notably, the survivor bears the evidential onus of establishing entitlement to maintenance.
Why did the claim succeed?
The SCA found that the respondent had established her reasonable maintenance needs. She was 70 when the deceased died and had been married to him for more than 25 years. Her income included R9 000 per month from employment with her son’s company and approximately R6 000 per month from renting a chalet on the property, although the rental income was irregular. An annuity, policy proceeds, and investments were also taken into account and deducted in calculating the claim.
The respondent’s expenses included medical aid, insurance on the property, and the salary of a domestic worker. Her son paid certain vehicle and fuel expenses, but the SCA held, consistently with Oshry NO and Another v Feldman, that voluntary financial assistance from a child does not constitute the survivor’s own means for purposes of the Act.
Consequently, the Court concluded that her income was inadequate to meet her maintenance needs and that the claim was supported by evidence. It accordingly held that the Master’s refusal to uphold the daughter’s objection was legally sound.
Why was the usufruct important?
The usufruct played an important role in the SCA’s assessment.
The Court considered the evidence that the deceased intended to provide for his wife’s maintenance. Indeed, the usufruct was granted to enable her to derive rental income from the property.
However, the existence of a usufruct did not, by itself, extinguish her statutory maintenance claim. Its practical value mattered.
The respondent demonstrated that the appellant and her family occupied the property and that this prevented her from fully exercising her usufruct. Consequently, she had lost potential rental income estimated at R819 000. She was also liable for substantial water and electricity charges generated by the appellant and her family, who paid neither rent nor a contribution towards those expenses.
Thus, although the will made provision for the respondent through a usufruct, it did not satisfy her reasonable maintenance needs in practice.
Does spousal maintenance ‘trump’ property inheritance?
It is critical to note that the maintenance claim did not invalidate the deceased’s will. The appellant remained the testamentary beneficiary to whom the deceased had bequeathed the property. However, a surviving spouse’s maintenance entitlement is a claim against the deceased estate, and the proof and disposal of that claim are dealt with through the administration of the estate. Ultimately, only what remains available for distribution can pass to the heirs and legatees.
In De Bruyn, the respondent established a valid maintenance claim of sufficient magnitude to absorb the estate available for distribution. Resultantly, there was no distributable balance from which the appellant’s testamentary bequest could be satisfied.
Practical significance of the judgment
The ruling demonstrates that simply leaving property to an heir does not guarantee that they will ultimately receive it. Valid claims against the deceased estate must first be handled during the administration process, and a substantial surviving spouse maintenance claim can materially reduce or exhaust what remains available for testamentary distribution.
Additionally, it illustrates that a usufruct is not necessarily a complete solution to a maintenance claim. Where a testator intends a usufruct to provide for a surviving spouse, its real economic value and practical enforceability are elementary. Indeed, a usufruct that cannot generate the contemplated income may not adequately meet the surviving spouse’s statutory maintenance needs.
Finally, the case highlights the Master of the High Court’s role in scrutinising the L&D account and objections to it. Here, the Master required further actuarial calculations, considered the amended account and supporting evidence, and rejected the objection. Section 35(10) of the Administration of Estates Act then permitted the aggrieved beneficiary to approach the court to set aside that decision.
The primary takeaway
Critically, De Bruyn does not establish that spousal maintenance automatically defeats an inheritance. Instead, it confirms something more precise: Where a surviving spouse proves a valid and reasonable statutory maintenance claim, that claim may exhaust the estate that would otherwise have been available to satisfy a testamentary bequest.
For expert legal guidance with resolving contentious estate-related matters, contact our skilled team of attorneys today.
This content is protected by the Copyright Act 98 of 1978. If you wish to copy or reproduce this content on your own platform or website, please ensure that the author is properly credited and the link to this article is included.