Spousal Consent: unveiling the challenges in community of property marriages

When spouses are married in community of property, our law dictates that a spouse requires the consent of the other spouse when entering into a transaction that affects the joint estate. But what happens when one spouse refuses to provide consent?

When spouses are married in community of property, our law dictates that a spouse requires the consent of the other spouse when entering into a transaction that affects the joint estate. But what happens when one spouse refuses to provide consent?

In accordance with Section 14 of the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984, spouses married in community of property hold equal rights in respect of the disposal of assets of the joint estate, the contracting of debts which lie against the joint estate, and the management of the joint estate.

The result of the statutory provisions contained in Sections 15 and 17 of the Matrimonial Property Act is that a spouse must in some instances provide their spouse with written consent when entering into certain transactions which would have an impact on the joint estate or when acting in legal proceedings in respect of the joint estate. These provisions aim to protect the joint estate and ensure that both spouses are involved in the administration of their affairs.

That said, life happens and spouses may not agree. Accordingly, our law makes provision for instances where a spouse refuses to provide consent or consent cannot be obtained. Section 16 of the Matrimonial Property Act determines that a spouse seeking consent may apply to court to be permitted to enter into the transaction without the other spouse’s consent. The court will consider the circumstances and grant the application if it is convinced that the spouse withholding consent is doing so unreasonably or that a good reason exists to dispense with the consent.

The court also has the authority to, upon application by a spouse married in community of property, suspend a spouse’s power which he or she may exercise in terms of Chapter 3 of the Matrimonial Property Act for a definite or an indefinite period if the court is convinced that doing so would be necessary to protect the interests of a spouse in the joint estate.

Given the nature of a marriage in community of property, spouses so married must appreciate that as a rule their unilateral decision-making powers in respect of the joint estate are limited. That said, where a spouse is being unreasonable in refusing to provide consent, it may be worthwhile considering whether there is a need for the remedies indicated above. Consider consulting your attorney or family law specialist for guidance on whether an application to court is an option for you.

Disclaimer: This article is the personal opinion/view of the author(s) and is not necessarily that of the firm. The content is provided for information only and should not be seen as an exact or complete exposition of the law. Accordingly, no reliance should be placed on the content for any reason whatsoever and no action should be taken on the basis thereof unless its application and accuracy have been confirmed by a legal advisor. The firm and author(s) cannot be held liable for any prejudice or damage resulting from action taken on the basis of this content without further written confirmation by the author(s).

May 29, 2023
The costly consequences of backdated share transactions

The costly consequences of backdated share transactions

The South African legislative framework regards backdated shares as a suspicious and illegal practice, as it arises when a share issue or transfer is recorded as having occurred on an earlier date than the actual transaction. While backdating may be viewed as an administrative oversight, the consequences may constitute compliance risk, serious misconduct on directors, beneficial owners and compliance officers who authorise the backdating of share transactions. This is because backdated shares may manipulate the timing of funds, obscure the source of funds, and distort a company’s beneficial ownership structure.

Tax transparency matters: Are your deals reportable?

Tax transparency matters: Are your deals reportable?

Some deals come with hidden reporting duties. Find out when your transactions could trigger SARS disclosure rules, and how to stay compliant. You may have heard the term “reportable arrangement” in tax conversations around commercial transactions. It sounds technical, and it is, but at its core, it’s about transparency. The South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) seeks information on certain transactions that could be used to avoid or reduce tax. If you enter a reportable arrangement, you may be legally required to report it. Failure to comply can result in significant penalties.

Tinsel, trolleys, and traps: Outsmarting the Black Friday storm

Tinsel, trolleys, and traps: Outsmarting the Black Friday storm

As Black Friday specials and festive-season sales saturate the market, retailers compete with promises of “unbeatable” discounts and “blink-and-you-miss-it” deals. But even in the frenzy, the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (the “CPA”) still applies. Designed to curb deceptive advertising, ensure fair pricing, and guarantee that goods remain of acceptable quality, the CPA sets the rules of the game. Understanding these rights is essential for both suppliers and shoppers, helping prevent year-end discounts from turning into disputes.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest