Maryna holds the BA, LLB, LLM degrees and is a Director at the Cape Town branch of STBB. She is an admitted Attorney, Notary Public, Conveyancer and Insolvency Practitioner with many years of experience in the fields of property law, conveyancing and the laws relating to corporate compliance (especially in respect of the FICA and POPIA laws). Up until 2018 she was also head of the firm’s national marketing portfolio. She is a seasoned public speaker and presenter, both in person and online. She prepares text for the majority of STBB’s internal and external publications and is editor and co-writer for two pivotal publications in the South African real estate industry – the ABC of Conveyancing (JUTA) and Delport’s South African Property Law and Practice (JUTA).

Property Law Update | Issue 17 – 2020

SECTIONAL TITLE AIRBnB SUB-LETTING: REVIEW OF TRUSTEE RESOLUTION NEGATIVELY IMPACTING ESTATE AGENCY

Bae Estates and Escapes (Pty) Ltd v Trustees, The Legacy Body Corporate and Another 2020 (4) SA 514 (WCC) 2020 (4) SA 514

In this matter the trustees of a body corporate resolved to disallow all owners from using a certain estate agency, due to problems that arose with AirBnB tenants in one owner’s unit. The agency assisted the owner to find tenants who, in turn, sublet the unit to AirBnB guests in terms of their agreement with the owner. The agency’s application to court sought an order reviewing and setting aside the resolution as it had a direct and significant impact upon the agency, a third party. And, in the circumstances where the resolution was not preceded by even a basic investigation by the trustees and managing agent of the underlying facts, not granting the owner or the agency any prior opportunity to make representations, the resolution was not rationally connected to the purpose for which it had been taken, was unreasonable and unlawful.
The Judgment can be viewed here.

Summary of the Judgment

UNREGISTERED SERVITUDE: NEIGHBOUR BLOCKING SHARED DRIVEWAY – WHAT RECOURSE IS THERE?

McLeroth v Naicker and Others (43885/2018) [2020] ZAGPJHC 177 (11 August 2020)

In this matter a dispute arose in a small development where it was self-evident that the 5 subdivided erven had to grant each other servitudes of right of way in order to access the sole driveway that gave access to a public road for each. Although servitudinal diagrams were approved by the Surveyor General, these were never registered against the title deeds. This judgment illustrates one way in which an owner can claim that such servitude must be recognized and registered in favour of her property.
The Judgment can be viewed here.

The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment

For the best legal advice and personalised service, let's talk
Subscribe to our monthly newsletters, subscribe