Maryna holds the BA, LLB, LLM degrees and is a Director at the Cape Town offices of STBB. She is an admitted Attorney, Notary Public and Conveyancer with many years of experience in the field of property law and conveyancing. She is also the firm's Marketing Director and attends to external publications for the firm as well as conducts ongoing training for estate agent and bankers training and is a regular seminar presenter for attorneys and property practitioners.

Property Law Update | Issue 06 – 2020

DONATING ASSETS TO CARE FOR A SECOND FAMILY ON DEATH: MUST THE CURRENT SPOUSE CONSENT?
Marais N.O. and Another v Maposa and Others (642/2018) [2020] ZASCA 23 (25 March 2020)

Where A, married in community of property to B, donates valuables to C with whom he was in a longstanding relationship and with whom he had a second family, what must C show to a court that the donation was valid despite the fact that B had no knowledge thereof? The Matrimonial Property Act states that where parties are married in community of property each can in general deal with assets as they please, except that consent from the other is necessary in certain instances, such as a donation. However, it also provides that where one spouse acts in contravention hereof in a transaction with a third party, that transaction will be deemed to be valid, despite the absence of the consent, if the third party could not reasonably have known that such consent was necessary but not obtained.
The Judgment can be viewed here.

The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment

YOUR AGREEMENT v YOUR INTENTIONS AT THE TIME

Auckland Park Theological Seminary v University of Johannesburg (1160/2018) [2019] ZASCA 24 (25 March 2020)Friday, 03 April 2020

It happens so often that parties conclude a written agreement, stating that the content thereof embodies the full extent of their obligations, and then afterwards, when problems arise, they seek to introduce details that they thought were common cause. In the present case, the university leased property to a company under a registered long term lease. When the company ceded these rights to a third party which sought to effect certain alteration, it was suddenly argued that the initial lease was unique and particular to the parties involved, and therefore incapable of cession. The judgment illustrates the difficulties and highlights again how important it is to make sure that agreements contain a proper (and informed) record of the parties’ intentions.

The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment