The "Exam Pack PVL2602" is a comprehensive study resource designed to assist students in preparing for the Property Law (PVL2602) examination. This exam pack contains a curated selection of practice questions, sample answers, and essential study materials tailored specifically to the course content...
1. Xander and W anda were married out of community of property with inclusion of the accrual
system. They had three adult sons, Ben, Charl and David. David was predeceased. Before his
death, David had been married to Zola. David and Zola had a child, Elize. David also had a child
Frank from a previous relationship with Petro. David and Petro had never been married. Zola had
an adult child, Gavin, from a previous marriage.
Xander dies intestate and the value of his estate amounts to R900 000. Xander's estate has to
pay R100 000 accrual to W anda.
Calculate how Xander's estate is going to devolve, giving reasons for your calculations. (10)
Statutory amount = R250 000.
i) Xander (X)'s estate has to pay R100 000 to Wanda (W) in terms of matrimonial
property law (the accrual that she was entitled to). X's intestate estate available for
distribution therefore amounts to R800 000 (R900 000 – R100 000 = R800 000).
ii) X had a spouse and children - therefore section 1(1)(c) of the Intestate Succession
Act 81 of 1987 applies in terms of which the spouse inherits either a child's share
or R250 000 (the statutory amount) whichever is the greater and the children share
the rest of the estate equally.
iii) A child's share is calculated by dividing the value of the intestate estate by the
number of children of the deceased
iv) who have either survived him,
v) or have predeceased him but are survived by their descendants,
vi) plus the number of surviving spouses (in this case only W).
vii) To calculate the child's share we therefore count Ben (B), Charl (C) and David (D)
(since D left children to represent him) plus W (B, C, D en W = 4), and divide R800
000 by 4. This means a child's share amounts to R200 000.
viii) Since a child’s share of R200 000 is less than the statutory amount of R250 000, W
inherits the amount of R250 000.
ix) After X inherits R250 000, R550 000 remains in X’s intestate estate to be divided
equally amongst his children. X's children, B, C and D (represented by his
children), inherit the residue in equal shares (R550 000 ÷ 3 = R183 333).
x) B and C each inherit R183 333 and E and F inherit D's share equally, each inheriting
R91 666.
xi) F may inherit even though he was born of unmarried parents, because in terms of
the Intestate Succession Act no difference should be made between children born
of married or unmarried parents.
xii) Gavin (G) may not inherit from X, because he is not a blood relation of D but a step-
child.
2. Tom committed suicide in 2014. He left a letter in which he wrote that he revoked all previous wills
and left all his possessions to his two children from his first marriage, Susan and Dennis. This
letter was only signed with Tom's signature. It appears that he had executed a valid will two years
previously in which he had left all his possessions to his second wife and nothing to his children.
Answer questions (a) and (b) on this set of facts.
a) Is the letter that Tom left behind a valid will? Give a reason for your answer. (2)
The will is not a valid will (1) because it was not signed by two competent witnesses (1)
b) Susan and Dennis approach you for advice. They want to know if there is any way that they
can inherit. Give a brief discussion of the problem with reference only to most recent and
most authoritative case law. (Discuss the current legal position without discussing the
previous split in opinion that existed.) (13)
, i) Susan and Dennis will have to approach the Court for an order in terms of
section 2(3) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953.
ii) Section 2(3) gives the High Court the power to order the Master to accept a
document
iii) which does not comply with the execution or amendment formalities, as a valid
will
iv) if it is satisfied that the testator intended the defectively executed document to
be his or her will or an amendment to it.
v) This power of the Court is often referred to as the power of condonation and
section 2(3) is often called the "rescue provision".
vi) If the requirements of section 2(3) are satisfied, the Court makes an order
directing the Master to accept the will or amendment as if it were validly
executed. The provisions of section 2(3) are peremptory. In other words, if the
requirements of the section are satisfied by proof on a balance of probabilities,
then the Court has no discretion but must make an order directing the Master
to accept the document as a valid will.
vii) Meaning of “drafted or executed”: In Bekker v Naude 2003 (5) SA 173 (SCA),
viii) the Supreme Court of Appeal held that a narrow interpretation should be given
to these words in terms of which the testator should have personally drafted
the document. This aspect is not an issue in our set of facts as it is clear that
the testator attempted to execute the document by signing it.
ix) The court has to be satisfied that the testator intended the document to be his 6
or her will. This requirement comes into play in the current set of facts.
x) To establish intention it must be shown that the particular document was, at
the time it was made, intended to be the final expression of the deceased’s
wishes, not subject to change except by a new will or codicil.
xi) According to the SCA, this required degree of finality is not present in the case
of written instructions, or letters of instruction, given by the deceased to an
attorney, bank, or other advisor, because the testator does not intend that the
instructions themselves should serve as his or her will. Rather, the testator
intends that a further document will be produced for his or her approval, based
on the written instructions.
xii) It is, however, vital to pay attention to the intention of the testator with respect
to the writing, not merely to the form that the writing takes.
xiii) Consequently, in Van Wetten v Bosch,
xiv) a section 2(3) order was granted with respect to a letter addressed to the
testator’s attorney containing instructions for the drafting of a will. What
distinguished this case from Ex parte Maurice was that the testator had left the
letter in the possession of a friend with instructions that the letter was only to
be given to the testator’s attorney if something should happen to the testator
which the Court interpreted as a reference to the testator’s death. Since it
would be futile to give instructions for the drafting of a will after one’s death,
the Court concluded that the letter itself was intended to function as the final
expression of the testator’s wishes, notwithstanding that it was in the form of a
letter of instructions.
3. Write a note on the capacity of a beneficiary under a will to inherit from the testator if the
beneficiary has caused the death of the testator. Refer to case law to substantiate your answer.
(5)
i) A beneficiary who is responsible for the death of the deceased or the
coniunctissimi (people closely related to the deceased) of the deceased is
precluded from inheriting either testate or intestate from the deceased (Ex parte
Steenkamp and Steenkamp 1952 (1) SA 744 (T)).
ii) The rule precluding a killer from inheriting finds application in the Roman-Dutch
law maxim, de bloedige hand neemt geen erf (literally meaning the bloody hand
takes no inheritance).
, iii) The operation of the bloedige hand maxim is absolute. It does not matter whether
the deceased was killed intentionally or negligently.
iv) Thus a beneficiary who commits culpable homicide (the unlawful and negligent
killing of a human being) is as equally disqualified from inheriting as a person who
commits murder (the unlawful and intentional killing of a human being). See Casey
v The Master, 1992 (4) SA 505 (N) at 507G.
v) Someone responsible for the death of the deceased or the coniunctissimi of the
deceased will not automatically be disqualified from inheriting and the Master does
not have the authority to disqualify him or her. An order of court is required in this
regard.
ASSIGNMENT 2 – SEMESTER 2 – 2015
1. Succession can take place by virtue of … [1] the law. [2] a will. [3] an antenuptial contract. [4] all
of the above. (2)
2. From what age may a person be a witness to a will? [1] 12 [2] 14 [3] 16 [4] 18 (2) 24
3. At what age does a person attain testamentary capacity? [1] 21 [2] 18 [3] 16 [4] 14 (2)
4. Xavier and Yoda were brothers. They were killed in an accident when the light aeroplane in which
they were travelling collided with a mountain. Their bodies were only found weeks after the
accident. A medical doctor could not determine whether they survived the crash or were killed
instantaneously. Xavier was the eldest of the two. He left a will in which he left his whole estate of
half a million rand to his brother Yoda. Yoda died intestate. Yoda’s only possession was his
Suzuki motorcycle. Xavier and Yoda were survived by their parents, Maggie and Fred, their sister,
Sally and Yoda’s ex-wife, Gina, who divorced Yoda two years before the accident. W ho will inherit
the money and the motorcycle? [1] Gina will inherit the money and the motorcycle. [2] Maggie and
Fred will inherit the money and Gina will inherit the motorcycle. [3] Maggie, Fred and Sally will
inherit the money and the motorcycle. [4] Maggie and Fred will inherit the money and the
motorcycle. (2)
5. In 2009 a testator, a very frail old man, made a one page will in which he left his estate to his
children. He signed the will with his mark in the presence of two witnesses and his attorney, one
Johnson. The witnesses signed the will with their signatures immediately below the testator's
signature. The attorney, Johnson, then signed the will. Because the page on which the will was
typed did not have enough space, he wrote the certificate required by section 2(1)(a)(v) on a
second page which he then attached to the will. In the certificate, Johnson stated that the testator
was known to him and that the will was the will of the testator. He then signed the certificate: “AP
Johnson, attorney-at-law”. According to Radley v Stopforth 1977 (2) SA 516 (A) this will is invalid
because … [1] the attorney did not follow the exact wording of section 2(1)(a)(v). [2] the attorney
did not use the specimen certificate provided in the W ills Act 7 of 1953. [3] the attorney did not
indicate his office as that of “commissioner of oaths”. [4] the certificate should have been
attached immediately below the signatures of the testator and the witnesses and not on a new
page. (2)
6. In Kidwell v The Master1983 (1) SA 509 (E) the will was invalid because ... [1] the commissioner
of oaths did not attach the required certificate. [2] the testator’s signature appeared 9 cm
below the end of the writing of the will. [3] the witnesses were not both present when the
testator signed his will. [4] the testator lacked the necessary testamentary capacity. (2)
7. In which manner did the testator revoke his first will in the case of Pienaar v Master of the Free
State High Court, Bloemfontein 2011 (6) SA 338 (SCA)? [1] The second will impliedly revoked
the first one, because its provisions were inconsistent with that of the first will. [2] The
second will contained an express revocation clause. [3] It was presumed that the testator had
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller MyStudyBud. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $2.96. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
