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
POPIA: protecting health and sex life data privacy

POPIA: protecting health and sex life data privacy

New draft Regulations to the Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 (“POPIA)” have been circulated for comment and relate to the processing of health and sex life data. Given the sensitive nature of such information, the fear of many data subjects has circled the unconsented sharing or processing of the data as it pertains to health and sex life. In this article, we take a brief look at the proposed new regulations.

Beneficial Ownership reporting: dormant and deregistered trusts

Beneficial Ownership reporting: dormant and deregistered trusts

The General Laws (Anti-Money Laundering and Combating Terrorism Financing) Amendment Act 22 of 2022 introduced important changes to the Trust Property Control Act 57 of 1988, most notably the requirement for trusts to report on their beneficial ownership to the Master of the High Court. But what if the trust is dormant or has been deregistered? Is reporting still needed?

Vodacom-Maziv merger blocked: competition vs public interest

Vodacom-Maziv merger blocked: competition vs public interest

Recently, the Competition Tribunal (Tribunal) issued a ruling prohibiting the proposed transaction involving Vodacom (Pty) Ltd (“Vodacom”) and Business Venture Investments No 2213 (Pty) Ltd (“Maziv”). The proposed merger would have seen Vodacom, the country’s largest mobile operator, merge with Maziv, a significant player in fibre infrastructure. The ruling raises the question of how fine a line exists between competition and public interest in mergers.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest