PVL2601 – Summary Study Notes (Family Law)

Marriage is traditionally defined as the legally recognized life long voluntary union between two parties to the exclusion of all others.  Capacity to act – mentally ill persons - if they enter into marriage the moment this occurs marriage is void.  Infant (children below age of 7) do not have the capacity to act.  Prodigals (a person with normal mental ability but who is unable of managing his or her own affairs because he or she squanders his or her assets in an irresponsible reckless way as a result of some defect in his or her power of judgment of character) may marry without consent. A marriage is not valid unless it is lawful for the parties to marry Ex parte Dow – applicant applied for an order declaring this marriage null and void because the wedding had taken place, in conflict with section 29(2) of the marriage act, in front of a garden. Marriage was declared valid. Consensus – forms the basis of and is fundamental requirement for entering into a marriage. Both parties must have the will to marry each other. Error in persona and error in negotio are the only forms of material mistakes recognized in connection with marriage. Misrepresentation – if one party misleads another prior to marriage by making false statements or creating a false impression by concealing information which should have been divulged and thereby persuades the other to enter into marriage, marriage is voidable if misrepresentation was of a serious nature. Duress- if one spouse was forced to consent to the marriage by duress, the marriage is voidable.In smit v smit the woman was coerced to such an extent by her father and prospective husband that she appeared dazed and lacked the will of her own during the wedding. The court concluded that the duress rendered the marriage voidable and therefore set marriage aside. Undue influence also renders a marriage voidable; generally an unlawful marriage is void. Persons within the prohibited degrees of relationship – our law prohibits marriage between persons within certain degrees of relationship. Marriages entered into in conflict with this prohibition are void. RELATIONSHIPS prohibited -  Consanguinity – relationship which is created by birth between persons. It is irrelevant if legitimate or illegitimate (blood relationship) – direct line – your parents, your children.  Consanguinity (blood relationship)– collateral line – your brothers ,sisters, nephews ,nieces and cousins  Affinity - relationship that comes into place by marriage and blood relations of spouses (relationship by marriage) – direct line – your parents in law, your step children  Affinity (relationship by marriage) – collateral line – your sister in law , brother in law  Ascendants – your grandparents, your parents  Descendants – your children, your grandchildren BLOOD LINES:  A woman may not marry her deceased husbands father  A man may not marry his sisters daughter  A man can marry his deceased’s brother wife  A stepchild is a relative by affinity in the direct line  You and sister in law – affinity in the collateral line Formalities preceding the marriage ceremony – section 12 of the marriage act provide that a marriage officer may not solemnize a marriage unless each party furnishes his or her identity document or prescribed affidavit. For marriage both parties must be present personally. No one can conclude a valid marriage through representation. Marriage officer who solemnizes a marriage, the parties thereto and 2 competent witnesses must sign marriage register immediately after marriage has been solemnized. VOID, VOIDABLE AND PUTATIVE CIVIL MARRIAGES: VOID MARRIAGE - a void marriage is one which has simply never come into existence. The position is thus exactly as it would have been had the “marriage” never been concluded Ground for nullity –  Marriage is solemnized by someone who is not a competent marriage officer  No witnesses present at marriage  One party is already married  The parties are related to each other within the prohibited degrees of relationship  One of the parties is below age of puberty  One of the parties is mentally ill A CONSEQUENCE OF A VOID MARRIGE – a marriage is void ad initio – from the outset – does not have legal consequences of a valid marriage. VOIDABLE MARRIAGE – is a marriage in which grounds are present either before or at the time of the wedding, on the basis of which the court can be requested to set the marriage aside. Grounds for setting aside:  Minority  Stuprum – extra marital sexual intercourse with a third party before the marriage  Material mistake  Impotence  Sterility CONSEQUENCES OF A VOIDABLE MARRIAGE: A voidalbe marriage remains in force and has all the normal legal consequences of a valid marriage until it is set aside by a court order. PUTATIVE MARRIAGE – exists when one of the parties to the marriage or both of them married unaware that there is a defect which renders the marriage void. At the time of entering into the marriage the particular party therefore believes in good faith that he or she is entering into a valid civil marriage (example parties did not know that they were related within the prohibited degrees of relationship). Both parties must be unaware of defect. CONSEQUENCES OF A PUTATIVE MARRIAGE: Is void ab initio, it has some of the legal consequences of a valid marriage for as long as at least one of the parties is bona fide, one of the parties on reasonable grounds was unaware of defect that renders the marriage void. PRESCRIBED CASE – MOOLA V AULSEBROOK: The applicant and her deceased husband had gone through a marriage ceremony in accordance with Islamic rites by a priest who was not a duly appointed marriage officer. Neither spouse was aware that they had to be married by a duly appointed marriage officer. The spouses lived together in monogamy from date of wedding until the husband’s death. They had seven children. When the husband died it was discovered that his will was invalid and his estate therefore had to devolve intestate. The applicant applied for an order declaring the children to be legitimate to enable them to inherit from their father. (At that time extra marital children could not inherit from their father in terms of the rules of intestate succession). The application was based on the argument that the marriage between the children’s parents was a putative marriage even though the statutory requirements for solemnization of a marriage had not been complied with. The application was granted. In this case the court had to decide whether or not a putative marriage can come into existence if the marriage was not duly solemnized. At common law due solemnization was a prerequisite for a putative marriage. There are however many cases which are authority for the view that as long as the marriage was “contracted openly and in accordance with rituals and ceremonies not inconsistent with our law” it can be putative (ex parte anzar, ex parte l , ex parte soobiah, ex parte Reynolds) PRESCRIBED CASE - SOLOMONS V ABRAMS: due solemnization as a requirement for a putative marriage. The parties entered into a Muslim marriage. There was no evidence that they attempted or intended to comply with the requirements of the marriage act. Nor did they make any attempt to establish what those requirements were. They did not think that they had entered into a civil marriage. The priest did not hold himself out as being authorized to solemnize a civil marriage or as purporting to solemnize such a marriage. The applicant sought an order declaring that the union between the parties was putative civil marriage and that the children born thereof were legitimate. The application was dismissed. Parties did not think that the moulana was a marriage officer. Their evidence is not that they thought that they had become spouses in a civil marriage. There is no evidence of attempting or intending to comply with the requirements of the marriage act. THE INVARIABLE CONSEQUENCES OF A CIVIL MARRIAGE: Refers to personal consequences to marriage. Status of spouses change –  neither spouse may marry anyone else whilst marriage subsists,  spouses are guardians of children born of marriage,  relationship by affinity is created,  spouses married in cop capacity to act is restricted,  minor attains majority and retains it even if marriage dissolved. Legal concept of consortium Omnis vitae is used in our law to determine when a marriage relationship is no longer normal. This concept includes material and immaterial things. By this we mean that this concept does not have a precise definition as virtually all the objects of all the rights emanating from marriage can be grouped together. In Grobblelaar vs Havenga – this concept was described an “an abstraction comprising the totality of a number of rights, duties and advantages accruing to the spouse of a marriage. This totality comprises inter alia “companionship, love, affection, comfort, mutual services, sexual intercourse. In Peter vs Minister of Law and order it was said that the concept is used “as an umbrella word for all the legal rights of one spouse” Spousal maintenance – from its beginning to its end marriage imposes a reciprocal duty of support between spouses, provided that the spouse whom claims maintenance is in need of it and the spouse from whom it is claimed is in a position to provide it. Duty of support arises at the beginning of the marriage, that is, as soon as the marriage has been solemnized. Requirements for the duty of support between spouses , there must be a valid marriage between the parties, the person claiming support must be in need of support ,the person from whom the support is claimed must be able to provide it. PRESCRIBED CASE - EXCELL V DOUGLAS – liability for household necessaries when there is no joint household. The defendant and his wife are married in community of property. They agreed to part. For the duration of the separation, the husband paid his wife an allowance. In 1923 a court ordered him to pay his wife 20 pounds per month. A number of years after their separation, the wife bought clothes on credit. When she refused to pay for the goods, the storekeeper demanded payment from the defendant. He denied liability on the ground that the spouses were living apart and that he was paying his wife a monthly allowance. The court a quo held that a husband is indeed liable for household necessaries his wife buys while they are living apart, owing to an agreement between them. The defendant appealed against this decision. The appeal was upheld. The question as to when and how far a wife can bind her husband by her contracts is dealt with by a large number of roman Dutch law writers, and has often been discussed in our courts. This case deals with the basis of ones spouses’ liability for goods the other spouse purchased on credit while there was no common household between them. One spouse has the capacity to bind the other and, if the marriage is in cop, the joint estate, for household goods only if 3 requirements are met: there must be a valid marriage between the parties, the parties must share a joint household, the transaction in question must relate to household necessaries. As was pointed in this case once the joint household comes to an end, one spouse can no longer bind the other spouse in contract for household necessaries – one of the requirements for contractual liability is absent, namely joint household. PRESCRIBED CASE - RELOOMEL V RAMSAY: liability for household necessaries Dr ramsay and his wife were married out of cop. Dr ramsay went to England and left his wife and children behind in Potchefstroom. There was no disagreement between the spouses and they were therefore not separated in the legal sense. Dr Ramsay gave his wife a very meager allowance of 15 pounds per month while he was away. During his absence his wife exceeded her allowance. On Dr Ramsay’s return, the plaintiff demanded payment for the debts Mrs Ramsay had incurred. Dr Ramsay refused to pay. He averred that the goods that the plaintiff had supplied to his wife were not household necessaries that his wife had had no right to pledge his credit, and that as their marriage was out of cop he was not liable for debts she incurred. The court a quo allowed the plaintiffs claim in respect of several items but refused to allow his claim for payment for silk and other fabric, as it did not consider them to be household necessaries. The plaintiff appealed against this decision. The appeal was upheld and Dr Ramsay was ordered to pay for the dress fabric as well. In this case the court inter alia set out how one should determine whether a particular item is a household necessary. The court emphasized that factors such as the spouses standard of living ,their means, the customs of the people in their area and so forth must be considered. The subjective approach was used in terms of which the matter is viewed from the prospective of the dealer.