The Supreme Court of Appeal in Manelis v Manelis ZASCA 55 has delivered an important judgment on how commencement values in antenuptial contracts operate under the accrual system. The Court held that where spouses expressly record the commencement value of their estates in the antenuptial contract, those values are contractually binding and serve as conclusive proof between them, unless the contract is successfully attacked on recognised common-law grounds such as fraud, misrepresentation, duress, undue influence or common error (with rectification).
The dispute arose in a divorce between spouses married out
of community of property with accrual. The husband’s commencement value was
recorded in the ANC as R68,7 million, which the parties later agreed equated
(after CPI adjustment) to R129 million shortly before dissolution of the
marriage. The wife argued that this value was overstated and tried to rely on
section 6(3) of the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984 to “re-open” the
commencement value and prove a lower figure, which would have created a substantial
accrual claim in her favour.
There were conflicting High Court decisions on whether
section 6(3) makes the ANC only prima facie proof of commencement values or
whether it applies only where no value is declared and a later notarial
statement is used. The SCA resolved this by drawing a sharp distinction:
- If a
commencement value is declared in the antenuptial contract, the ANC is
governed by ordinary contract law, and the value is binding and
conclusive.
- Section
6(3) applies only where no value is declared in the ANC and a later
statement is made, or where the value is deemed nil under section 6(4)(b);
in those situations, the statement or deemed nil value is only prima facie
proof and may be rebutted by evidence.
On the facts, the wife did not attack the ANC on contractual grounds and, crucially, even on her own expert’s evidence the husband’s estate at divorce was worth less (about R117,2 million) than the CPI‑adjusThe Supreme Court of Appeal in Manelis v Manelis ZASCA 55 has delivered an important judgment on how commencement values in antenuptial contracts operate under the accrual system. The Court held that where spouses expressly record the commencement value of their estates in the antenuptial contract, those values are contractually binding and serve as conclusive proof between them, unless the contract is successfully attacked on recognised common-law grounds such as fraud, misrepresentation, duress, undue influence or common error (with rectification).
The dispute arose in a divorce between spouses married out
of community of property with accrual. The husband’s commencement value was
recorded in the ANC as R68,7 million, which the parties later agreed equated
(after CPI adjustment) to R129 million shortly before dissolution of the
marriage. The wife argued that this value was overstated and tried to rely on
section 6(3) of the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984 to “re-open” the
commencement value and prove a lower figure, which would have created a substantial
accrual claim in her favour.
There were conflicting High Court decisions on whether
section 6(3) makes the ANC only prima facie proof of commencement values or
whether it applies only where no value is declared and a later notarial
statement is used. The SCA resolved this by drawing a sharp distinction:
- If a
commencement value is declared in the antenuptial contract, the ANC is
governed by ordinary contract law, and the value is binding and
conclusive.
- Section
6(3) applies only where no value is declared in the ANC and a later
statement is made, or where the value is deemed nil under section 6(4)(b);
in those situations, the statement or deemed nil value is only prima facie
proof and may be rebutted by evidence.
On the facts, the wife did not attack the ANC on contractual
grounds and, crucially, even on her own expert’s evidence the husband’s estate
at divorce was worth less (about R117,2 million) than the CPI‑adjusted
commencement value of R129 million. Since accrual is the amount by which the
net value at dissolution exceeds the commencement value, there was no positive
accrual in his estate and no claim arose. The SCA therefore dismissed the
appeal with costs, including the costs of two counsel and the condonation
application for late filing of the record.
For practitioners and clients, the message is clear:
commencement values recorded in an ANC are not just a formality; they are the
backbone of future accrual calculations. Parties should ensure they understand
and agree to these values at the time of contracting, because they will be
bound by them unless the ANC itself can be set aside or rectified on solid
legal grounds.
No comments:
Post a Comment