The case reaffirmed the strong legal entitlement of a surviving spouse under the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act 27 of 1990 (MSSA).
Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act
It is trite law that there is a reciprocal duty of support between spouses. This duty may even extend beyond the death of a spouse.
Section 2 of the MSSA allows the surviving spouse of a deceased person to claim for his or her reasonable maintenance needs under certain circumstances.
Section 3 of the Act provides the following factors which must be considered when determining reasonable spousal maintenance needs, namely:
- the amount in the deceased estate available for distribution;
- the existing and expected means, earning capacity, financial needs and obligations of the surviving spouse; and
- the surviving spouse’s standard of living while the marriage subsisted and the surviving spouse’s age.
In De Bruyn, it was argued that the maintenance claim of the surviving spouse against the deceased estate failed to sufficiently address the factors listed in section 3 of the MSSA.
Spouse’s maintenance claim was excessive
Johannes Jacob Prinsloo (deceased), passed away on 29 January 2015. MJ Prinsloo (surviving spouse) was respectively cited in her official capacity as executrix of the deceased’s estate and her personal capacity as his surviving spouse. The appellant, J De Bruyn, was the deceased’s daughter from a previous marriage.
The spouse sought spousal maintenance in terms of sections 2 and 3 of the MSSA. During the winding up of the deceased’s estate, she obtained the assistance of an actuary for the calculation of her maintenance claim.
The deceased had in his will bequeathed his immovable property to his daughter and had granted his surviving spouse a lifelong usufruct over that immovable property. However, the spouse’s maintenance claim exceeded the value of the deceased’s estate.
In the provisional Liquidation and Distribution Account submitted to the Master of the High Court, the spouse was awarded the entire estate – including the immovable property – to meet her maintenance needs.
Consequently, no assets were left for distribution among the daughter and the deceased’s other heirs (the fourth to sixth respondents).
The daughter lodged an objection to the L&D account, reasoning that the surviving spouse’s maintenance claim was excessive and deprived her from her inheritance. However, the Master rejected the daughter’s objection on the basis that the claim complied with the MSSA and did not render the estate insolvent.
The daughter then launched a review application in the High Court in terms of section 35(10) of the Administration of Estates Act 66 of 1965 (AEA). Where the Master refuses to sustain an objection, section 35 allows the aggrieved party to apply to court to set aside the Master’s decision.
The daughter argued that the surviving spouse’s maintenance claim was solely based on the actuarial report and that the reasonableness thereof was not verified by any external sources.
The daughter did not, however, provide the court with her view of what would be reasonable, nor did she provide the court with the report of an actuary of her choice. The daughter further sought an order removing the surviving spouse as executrix in terms of section 54(1)(a) of the AEA.
The court dismissed the application with costs.
An appeal was then brought before a full court. In addition to her previous claims, the daughter argued that the surviving spouse had no spousal maintenance claim against the deceased estate at all.
The appeal was also dismissed with costs.
The Supreme Court of Appeal
The SCA then granted special leave to appeal. However, the reasonableness of the quantum of spousal maintenance was the only issue argued during the hearing.
The argument that the spouse had no entitlement to maintenance and the claim for the removal of the spouse as executrix were both abandoned.
The SCA relied on the case of
Friedrich and Others v Smit NO and Others [2017] (Friedrich), where the court held that a surviving spouse does not have a claim for spousal maintenance ‘merely by reason of the marriage’. The surviving spouse must show that she is unable to maintain him or herself.
Additionally, according to Friedrich, the list of factors in section 3 of the MSSA is not exhaustive and the court may take any other relevant factor into account.
The SCA began by looking at section 3(a) of the MSSA.
It noted that the actuary had initially calculated an amount substantially higher – an amount that would have rendered the estate insolvent. The claim was later adjusted to align with the distributable balance in the estate.
Additionally, by bequeathing the usufruct over the property in favour of the spouse, the deceased enabled the spouse to derive a rental income from the chalet situated on the immovable property. The SCA held that in doing so, the deceased had unequivocally expressed his wish to provide for the spouse’s maintenance.
Married for 26 years
Having regard to the further factors in section 3 of the MSSA, the court noted that the spouse had been married to the deceased for 26 years and was 70 years old at the time of the deceased’s death. She had no formal qualifications and was employed by her son, earning R9,000 per month.
Additionally, while the chalet on the property was being rented for R6,000 per month, this income was irregular and undependable. The SCA also had regard to the annuity, policies and investment holdings from which the spouse stood to benefit.
Whilst the spouse’s son assisted her with her vehicle instalment and fuel expenses, the court noted that this voluntary support does not constitute the spouse’s own means. To recognise it as such would be to risk depriving the spouse of her statutory maintenance claim should her son later be unable to provide this support.
In assessing the surviving spouse’s standard of living, the SCA found that the spouse and the deceased had vehicles and a large property and the deceased had owned a company and farm. However, after the deceased’s death the company was liquidated and the farm sold.
The court was informed that due to the daughter and her family moving onto the property, the spouse had to reduce her own living space. Moreover, the daughter did not pay rent, nor did she contribute towards utility bills, which exceeded a considerable R12,000 per month.
The court held that the reduced living space and increased monthly expenses had resulted in the spouse’s standard of living being greatly reduced and that this state of affairs was largely as a result of the daughter’s conduct.
The court found the daughter’s attitude obstructive and not in the interests of the estate.
The spouse had submitted evidence of her need in support of her claim.
By contrast, the daughter had not adduced evidence to dispute the spouse’s financial needs, thereby ultimately failing to disprove the reasonableness of the spouse’s maintenance claim.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Preference of spousal maintenance
This case illustrates the preference that a spousal maintenance claim in terms of the MSSA can take over the rights of heirs who stand to benefit from an estate.
It further highlights the importance of a litigant having to adduce cogent evidence when disputing a surviving spouse’s maintenance claim under the MSSA.
