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 20 – 2022

TRUSTEES OF FAMILY TRUST CANNOT CRY FOUL IF THEY DID NOT DO THEIR HOMEWORK

Nedbank Limited v Mhlari N O and Others (37766/2018) [2022] ZAGPJHC 719 (22 September 2022)

When a Trust Deed stipulates that a certain number of trustees must hold office for the trust to operate, compliance therewith is vital, failing which contracts entered into by the Trust risk being declared invalid. This is exactly what was sought here after the (only) two trustees of a trust entered into a R16 million loan on behalf of the Trust. The Trust Deed had stipulated that there must always be three trustees and, as the trustees argued here (after falling into arrears), this fact rendered the loan agreement invalid. That may be so, the Court said, but they were nonetheless estopped from taking this point – the trustees had, in furnishing a signed resolution to the bank confirming their appointment and authorisation to act on the Trust’s behalf, established ostensible authority and are to be held thereto.

The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment

THE ANTENUPTIAL AND THE ADDED AGREEMENT: CAN THEY CO-EXIST?

B v B (820/2021) [2022] ZASCA 123 (22 September 2022)

In a generous agreement entered into between would-be-spouses, after concluding an antenuptial agreement and before solemnising their marriage, the husband undertook, amongst other things to maintain his future wife for the rest of her life, even if there is a divorce. When the marriage faltered, the wife sought to rely on the agreement. The husband argued to the contrary, saying that the agreement in effect changed the essence of the antenuptial and was therefore invalid. Not so, said the Court, explaining that the aim and legal consequence of the two agreements in this matter were quite different, and that they should be read together. The summary below highlights the Court’s sound reasoning.

The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment

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