A widow has successfully defended her right to claim maintenance from her late husband’s estate, with the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ruling that her claim lawfully exhausted the estate and left nothing for her stepdaughter, who had challenged the payment for years.
The SCA dismissed an appeal by Jocelyn de Bruyn, the adult daughter of the late Johannes Jacob Prinsloo, confirming that the deceased’s surviving spouse, Martha Johanna Prinsloo, was entitled to maintenance.
The court found that the widow had proved she was unable to adequately support herself and that her maintenance claim was both reasonable and supported by evidence. As a result, the estate had no assets left to distribute to beneficiaries, including De Bruyn.
The dispute centred on the estate of Johannes Jacob Prinsloo, who died in January 2015.
Prinsloo’s will bequeathed his immovable property to his daughter, Jocelyn de Bruyn, while granting his wife, Martha Prinsloo, a lifelong usufruct over the property, allowing her to live there or derive rental income from it. The will also appointed Martha as executrix of the estate and authorised her to sell estate assets if necessary.
Following her husband’s death, Martha Prinsloo lodged a maintenance claim against the estate under the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act.
An actuarial assessment calculated that her reasonable maintenance needs exceeded the total value of the estate. The liquidation and distribution account therefore allocated the remaining distributable assets to satisfy her maintenance claim, effectively leaving no inheritance for the deceased’s heirs.
De Bruyn objected to the liquidation and distribution account, arguing that the widow’s maintenance claim was excessive and improperly calculated.
She contended that the actuarial report relied almost entirely on information supplied by Martha Prinsloo without independent verification and argued that, as both claimant and executrix, the widow occupied a conflicted position.
De Bruyn also maintained that her stepmother had previously earned an income through the deceased’s company and therefore should not have been regarded as financially dependent on the estate.
However, both the high court and a full bench of the Gauteng high court later dismissed De Bruyn’s challenges before the matter reached the SCA.
At the SCA, judge Daisy Sekao Molefe said a surviving spouse is not automatically entitled to maintenance simply because of the marriage.
Instead, the surviving spouse must demonstrate that they cannot reasonably provide for themselves from their own means and earnings.
The court said the law requires consideration of several factors, including the value of the estate, the survivor’s financial means, earning capacity, needs and obligations, the duration of the marriage, the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage and the survivor’s age.
The court found that Martha Prinsloo met every requirement under the legislation.
She had been married to the deceased for 26 years and was 70 years old when he died. She had no formal qualifications and had spent most of the marriage financially dependent on her husband.
Although she earned about R9,000 a month working for her son and occasionally received R6,000 a month in rental income from a chalet, the rental income was inconsistent. She had also received policy proceeds, investments and an annuity, all of which had already been deducted when calculating her maintenance claim. Her monthly expenses included medical aid, insurance and domestic worker costs amounting to approximately R8,000. Her son assisted by paying her vehicle instalments and fuel expenses.
However, the court ruled that voluntary financial support from her children could not be treated as her own financial means.
The judgment also highlighted that Martha Prinsloo had been unable to fully enjoy the usufruct granted to her in the will because De Bruyn and her family continued occupying the property.
According to the evidence, the widow had to reduce her own living space to accommodate them, lost potential rental income estimated at R819,000 and continued paying water and electricity bills of more than R12,000 a month for the appellant and her family, who neither paid rent nor contributed to the utilities.
The court noted that the deceased had clearly intended to provide for his wife’s maintenance through the will and that the law required his wishes to be respected.
The SCA concluded that the Master’s decision approving the maintenance claim was legally correct.
“The respondent established the right to maintenance. It is reasonable and was supported by evidence of need,” the court held.
The judges further observed that the widow’s standard of living had deteriorated significantly after her husband’s death and criticised De Bruyn for adopting what they described as an obstructive approach that unnecessarily prolonged the administration of the estate.
Finding no error in the decisions of either the Master or the lower courts, the SCA dismissed the appeal with costs, bringing to an end a legal battle that had delayed the winding up of the estate for more than a decade.
sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za
IOL News
Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel.
