Millionaire pursues estranged husband for maintenance, and wins

A wealthy Johannesburg woman who argued she is reliant on her estranged husband and father to manage her extensive financial holdings has secured a generous maintenance settlement.

The husband filed for divorce in September last year, which is yet to be finalised. After paying her an allowance of R60,000 a month for two years, he stopped doing so in March, arguing she was able to support herself and his financial position had changed after being declared a delinquent director.

In bringing the action to compel her estranged husband to support her pending finalisation of their divorce, the woman revealed the extent of her financial assets.

She has four properties worth R10.5m registered in her name, two of which had yielded rental income prior to her split from her husband, and is a beneficiary of a family trust fund set up by her father.

She drives a R400,000 car and has jewellery valued at R407,000.

She has offshore investments valued at $72,481 (about R1.3m), eight investment and bank accounts in her name with an estimated value of R1.5m, other investments and bank accounts with various financial institutions totalling R84,237 and a pension plan valued at R82,200.

Despite this, she told the court she does not have an income from any source except an income from what she describes as an insignificant amount of interest from her FNB seven-day notice account.

The wife, who has moved from the marital home to rented accommodation since the separation, said she borrowed R180,000 from her father after her husband reneged on the agreement to pay her monthly expenses. She said she also owes her father R1.6m.

The couple married out of community of property and by antenuptial contract in April 1993.

Now 52, she said she has not had a job since shortly after her marriage.

During their marriage, they enjoyed a high standard of living with regular holidays locally and abroad. Their children attended private education institutions. They were spoilt with presents, including new cars when they turned 18. The family ate at restaurants regularly. Her husband footed all the expenses.

She said he controlled the family finances, including the bank accounts in her name, while being “secretive about his financial affairs”.

Her husband countered by saying she is worth millions due to the family trust and has no financial difficulties given the property portfolio and the investments she owns.

Their holidays together, he said, were funded by her father and his clients. She agreed some of the trips were paid for by her family.

Johannesburg high court acting judge Tebogo Thupaatlase on Thursday found in her favour, despite being puzzled why she had not taken over management of her assets.

“It is not explained why she is supposedly suffering financially when she has such a huge property portfolio that should generate enough income to live off, yet she doesn’t,” he said. “There is no legal impediment preventing her exercising control over what is rightfully and lawfully her property.”

She also has a “huge investment portfolio, yet she has not revealed to the court how returns on those investments are used. She does not deny the investments and the property portfolio she owns. However, her contention is these are investments not immediately available to be used.”

The judge said he believed her assertion that she has no history of dealing with family finances and had relied on her husband to do so.

“It is evident [he] is still responsible for the running of [her] financial affairs and no evidence was placed before court to indicate steps if any, he has taken to divest himself of such control.

“It is not denied that during the period the couple lived together, it was the [husband] who controlled the family finances to the exclusion of the [wife]. The [husband] made much about the financial assistance [she] is receiving from her father. That alone is indicative [she] needs financial support,” Thupaatlase said.

The husband did not adequately explain his own finances to the court.

“It is undeniable that both parties accumulated assets of considerable value during their marriage. [However] he has not always been forthcoming with his financial disclosures [and] submitted a financial disclosure form without supporting documentation which makes it harder to assess his true financial position. The behaviour of the defendant appears to be designed to hide his true financial position.”

Despite her wealth, Thupaatlase said the husband “fails to appreciate his wife's assets were not acquired after their separation. He maintained her before this with the assets being there.”

He cited case law that “it would be reasonable to maintain her in a position similar to that to which she would ordinarily be accustomed while she was living with the husband”.

The judge ordered the husband to:

• pay her R84,000 a month;
• maintain payments for her as a dependent on his Profmed medical scheme;
• pay excess medical and dental expenses not covered by the scheme;
• pay her cellphone bills; and
• pay the monthly rates and taxes on properties in Poortview, Roodepoort, North Willowbrook and Groot Brakrivier (vacant land).

He must also pay her R180,000 in arrears maintenance and the costs of the court action.

The wife had also asked for maintenance for their two children.

She asked for her husband to pay an allowance of R20,000 a month to their daughter, a BCom industrial psychology student who lives at home, and R15,000 a month as well as rental accommodation for their son, who is studying towards a LLB degree. She requested he also be ordered to cover their varsity fees, medical insurance premiums and cellphone costs.

Thupaatlase said the husband acknowledged responsibility to maintain their children, albeit conditional on the sale of a Stellenbosch property which is registered in the name of their daughter.

“He has indicated he has a separate arrangement with the children regarding their maintenance and support. Given the ages of the children, [they] are competent to conclude such arrangements,” the judge said.

TimesLIVE