Cheating wife loses all benefits including husband’s pension, assets in divorce

[3WA]

The kicker for me through this drama is the wife is the plaintiff. Did the husband think she would change, hence not wanting to get divorced? Crazy!

Either a giant simp or a brilliant genius. Did everything to keep his nose clean, and gets to keep his whole pension as a result.

 

[W@P]

I bet yours didn't do the **** this woman did.







The kicker for me through this drama is the wife is the plaintiff. Did the husband think she would change, hence not wanting to get divorced? Crazy!

Close, she fscked off with one of my friends and took the kids with her. Now she is pregnant again with a guy she knew for 3 weeks. Deja fscking vu.

 

[Fulcrum29]

The challenge here would be when is it infidelity ?

Many years and some girlfriends back, I went out for a casual drink with Ms B while still in a relationship with Ms A.

Myself and Ms A broke up a few weeks later (unrelated to my drink) and Ms B and myself got together and ended up living together .

Did I Cheat ? Depends who you ask

It needs to be mutual. Some divorce cases can take years, and you can’t expect someone to not move on whilst given the circumstances. When one party has the intention to divorce, then that is it, but I know some divorce cases where one party simply don’t want to allow the process to run its course, targeting the other party at any given opportunity.

People are like that. Don't know why.

The rule is to be open and transparent with the other person in the marriage. As I have said multiple times with anything in law, all needs to be civil and reasonable. Both parties need to understand that the marriage has no reasonable chance to succeed.

You weren't in a marriage, not quite the same contractual commitment, though it does have its implications which can be argued in court.

 

[G'Wobblez]

Why dis newz?

I think ( might be wrong) because they ruled against the marriage contract.
He agreed in the beginning that no matter what happens she gets half. In a legal contract.

Usually in SA that means you are screwed into that contract no matter what.

 

[rh1]

I think ( might be wrong) because they ruled against the marriage contract.
He agreed in the beginning that no matter what happens she gets half. In a legal contract.

Usually in SA that means you are screwed into that contract no matter what.

Is it not because she did not stay with the husband for at least a year i.e. had nothing to do with the husband. The old age thinking on which the law was based is that the woman stayed at home looking after kids and home, whilst the husband provides for her and the kids. Hence during the divorce, wife gets half of everything. In this instance, this did not happen, so maybe in line with that old age thinking, she gets exactly what she gets and nothing more.

 

[TheChamp]

Cheating husband? Same?

What is good for the goose...

Not necessarily, every case on its merits, it's not only about cheating, generally men do take care of the family even while cheating, paying school fees and living expenses, so it's not just about the cheating but the general conduct of the person, it's clear the woman was not a homemaker, which is one of the reasons women generally get half of the assets, that is what sank her more than the cheating.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

I mean....

Years ago, you could sue the third party for adultery in South Africa and you would get limited damages awarded in courts.

But, in 2014, in the case of RH v DE, the Supreme Court of Appeal decided that such an action for damages has become outdated and that the law could no longer support such a claim. The matter then went to the Concourt. Unanimously, the Constitutional Court decided that adultery by a third party lacks wrongfulness for a delictual claim for injury or insult to self-esteem (contumelia) and loss of comfort and society (consortium) and that it is not reasonable to ascribe delictual liability to it.

The concourt ruled Adultery should no longer be punished through a civil damages claim. It is the commitment of spouses to maintain their marriage and not the responsibility of the law.

So, the high court was wrong in awarding this against the cheating spouse. She should still have access to all this. The concourt demands the sharing even with a cheating spouse.

The Appeal and Concourt will fix the ruling soon. The judges is trying to overthrow a concourt ruling and in a real society this is a serious breach from a lower court.

The case you're using was for the married husband to sue his wife's cheating partner. Not for a divorce case. Big difference.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

Legally why should the woman get anything.

Equality is no longer a thing? Women are incapable of looking after themselves.

I for example would always support my wife. But that is my own viewpoint, I dont believe the law should have any say on our marriage.

Marriage is a contract between you, your partner and the state. It has nothing to do with morality nor religion.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

You were together and you share. Easy as that. No contracts, no ifs or buts.

Marriage is a contract. Between partners and the state.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

Okay then. Wear a condom and do not marry.

Do you need to be married to have sex?

 

[TheChamp]

I bet yours didn't do the **** this woman did.







The kicker for me through this drama is the wife is the plaintiff. Did the husband think she would change, hence not wanting to get divorced?

The mean woman probably thought there was some advantage if you were the first one to thought there was some advantage if you were the first one to initiate the proceedings, the type usually think they know everything.

 

[Kosmik]

I think ( might be wrong) because they ruled against the marriage contract.
He agreed in the beginning that no matter what happens she gets half. In a legal contract.

Usually in SA that means you are screwed into that contract no matter what.

Many of those contracts have a infidelity clause that the erring partner gets nothing. Its simple, want a divorce and the split, go through the proceedings, don't be a *** and cheat while in the marriage itself.

 

[rvZA]

The case you're using was for the married husband to sue his wife's cheating partner. Not for a divorce case. Big difference.

I do not think you read the case at all. Adultery law was abolished in SA. There is no legal actions to be taken not even in civil court. This case will be overthrown soon and the guy will share his money with his wife. This case was never applicable to third parties only. The judgment covered adultery between both parties in the marriage too.

As you can see from this case the High Court faulted before and they were corrected. They faulted once again.

Adultery cases in any form should not be heard in any court in SA and I agree with the SCA on this:

The SCA also found that it was not in the best interests of young children of the marriage to be subjected to harmful publicity and emotional trauma that unfolds in adultery actions

On 25 September 2014, legal history was made when the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ruled that one could no longer claim compensation for damages as a result of adultery. Adultery has now been abolished. In the case of RH v DE, a man “D” sued his wife’s lover “R”, for alienating his wife’s affection and being in an adulterous relationship with her. The High Court earlier found in favour of the ex husband and ordered the lover R to pay R75 000,00 as compensation. “R” however denied that he was responsible for the breakup and took the case on appeal to the SCA.

The SCA requested both counsels to address them on the issues of whether adultery should remain part of the law, giving considerations to our prevailing societal morals, the Constitution and the concept of marriage as an institution. In delivering his judgment, Judge Brand, together with 4 other judges who also concurred, ruled, “the time for the abolition of adultery has come”.

The Judge ruled that Section 39(2) of the Constitution imposes the duty on the courts to develop the common law so as to promote the spirit, purport and objectives of the Bill of Rights. It held that the courts should adapt the common law so that it reflects “the changing social, moral and economic fabric of society”. “Adultery has lost its social substratum”. He said it was doubtful whether these adultery claims had any deterrent effects on society as a whole and held that if a marriage is good one, it’s unlikely that it could be broken up by third party. Judge Brand said that many other countries have abolished adultery and that the time has come for our law to take into account the changing “mores” of our society. The SCA also found that it was not in the best interests of young children of the marriage to be subjected to harmful publicity and emotional trauma that unfolds in adultery actions. The court found that the ex- husband was motivated by considerations of anger at his wife for the breakup of their marriage. “So, instead of being moved by a need for solace and closure, the action was driven by a negative and destructive craving for revenge”.

 

[Alton Turner Blackwood]

I think ( might be wrong) because they ruled against the marriage contract.
He agreed in the beginning that no matter what happens she gets half. In a legal contract.

Usually in SA that means you are screwed into that contract no matter what.

That's why!

The High Court went against the marriage contract (wich was COP).

When married in COP you either have to have a settlement agreement on which you both voluntarily agree on who gets what, or the court will adjudicate, but will split all assets 50-50.

Example: I have a friend who got divorced not too long before me and he had two bakkies that he used for his business.

He argued that his wife has no driver's licence so there was no point in giving her one bakkie because it will hamper his business.

You have to remember what COP stands for, each party must leave the marriage with equal parts of their joint estate. So in order to make it fair the court ruled that he keeps both bakkies, but with the PROCEEDS from his business pay her back until he has paid her back the market value of one bakkie.

In my own divorce (three months ago). We only had one car and I told the court I work from home so don't need or want the car.

Court then ruled that she keeps the car, but that the market value be deducted from the proceeds of the sale of our house and paid to me.

The last bit was a bit of a dick move because she needs the car for the school run for our kids so I never expected her to agree. I'll just EFT that amount back to her.

My point is that court tries to split everything fairly, but this case went completely against the COP law in stripping everything from that slut because she hardly contributed to the marriage.

 

[TelkomUseless]

That's why!

The High Court went against the marriage contract (wich was COP).

When married in COP you either have to have a settlement agreement on which you both voluntarily agree on who gets what, or the court will adjudicate, but will split all assets 50-50.

Example: I have a friend who got divorced not too long before me and he had two bakkies that he used for his business.

He argued that his wife has no driver's licence so there was no point in giving her one bakkie because it will hamper his business.

You have to remember what COP stands for, each party must leave the marriage with equal parts of their joint estate. So in order to make it fair the court ruled that he keeps both bakkies, but with the PROCEEDS from his business pay her back until he has paid her back the market value of one bakkie.

In my own divorce (three months ago). We only had one car and I told the court I work from home so don't need or want the car.

Court then ruled that she keeps the car, but that the market value be deducted from the proceeds of the sale of our house and paid to me.

The last bit was a bit of a dick move because she needs the car for the school run for our kids so I never expected her to agree. I'll just EFT that amount back to her.

My point is that court tries to split everything fairly, but this case went completely against the COP law in stripping everything from that slut because she hardly contributed to the marriage.

I had to split 50/50.

Wife didn't pay for the cars (x2) , house etc. But had to sell the house (give her 50%), and 50% of each car's value.

Fun times when you see life savings go bye bye.

edit: Looking back, when I married her, her parents had a **** fit when I mentioned a contract etc for the marriage. I was a student at that stage, had nothing. O how naive I was. You as guy , with a decent job, will get bliksem in a divorce.

Anyone getting married COP should have their heads kick in. Your lovely wife might decide to bounce one day with her boyfriend, and you lose 50% of EVERYTHING.

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

Congrats @W@P...

 

[Cosmik Debris]

I had to split 50/50.

Wife didn't pay for the cars (x2) , house etc. But had to sell the house (give her 50%), and 50% of each car's value.

Fun times when you see life savings go bye bye.

edit: Looking back, when I married her, her parents had a **** fit when I mentioned a contract etc for the marriage. I was a student at that stage, had nothing. O how naive I was. You as guy , with a decent job, will get bliksem in a divorce.

Anyone getting married COP should have their heads kick in. Your lovely wife might decide to bounce one day with her boyfriend, and you lose 50% of EVERYTHING.

Correct. I have brought about 95% of the income into the marriage and bought 100% of all the assets. Should we get divorced, she will score 50% of all the assets.

Complete and absolute rubbish.

 

[Sensorei]

But, in 2014, in the case of RH v DE, the Supreme Court of Appeal decided that such an action for damages has become outdated and that the law could no longer support such a claim. The matter then went to the Concourt. Unanimously, the Constitutional Court decided that adultery by a third party lacks wrongfulness for a delictual claim for injury or insult to self-esteem (contumelia) and loss of comfort and society (consortium) and that it is not reasonable to ascribe delictual liability to it.

This does not apply here. The Concourt's judgement in RH vs DE was to ensure that the act of adultery is not being punishable by law with punitive damages, and that adulterers can not being held legally liable for their actions. But the plaintiff was suing his cheating ex-wife's new lover for emotional damage and for taking his wife from him. Not his wife.

This is a very different situation to the recent case in the Gauteng High Court.

 

[W@P]

I said to her we can get married, buite gemeenskap, sonder aanwas, of ons trou glad nie. Gave her a week or so to decide. Man, I think she could have kicked herself after the divorce was finalized.

 

[Dups!]

This judge is smoking his socks. The man should not be happy as it will come back to haunt him. This will definitely be reversed.

The agreement (COP) stands in spite of the cheating.

Don't know why men in particular still get married in community of property, they eventually lose out at the end. Sure, there are women who are well off but the majority who are at this stage are men and they suffer greatly.