Pretoria - You cannot hide from the taxman, and you cannot run from your maintenance obligations.
A man now stands to lose his home as he fell into arrears. He had entered into a maintenance agreement with his former wife 23 years ago.
She issued a warrant of execution against her ex-husband’s property on the basis of a divorce settlement entered into between them during September 1995, which settlement agreement was made an order of this court at the time.
According to the warrant and the documents in support of it handed to the high court in Johannesburg, an amount of R2 154 461.81 is due and payable by the husband to his ex-wife in respect of arrears maintenance for their daughter.
When the sheriff attempted to execute the writ, he was informed by the husband that he had no money or disposable property sufficient to pay the more than R2 million in arrears.
Asked by the sheriff whether he owned any immovable property which could be sold so the wife could get her money, the husband simply said “no”.
“In a legal bid to the high court not to be held responsible for the payment, the husband said he smelt a rat, as the timing of his wife issuing the writ against him was fishy.
“The entire warrant seems to be orchestrated. The timing thereof is also not coincidental, as I earlier in the year inherited some money from my father who passed away in 2015. Within a few weeks of inheriting, this warrant is served upon me,” he told the court.
Judge Leicester Adams said his denials that he owned any assets is patently false in view of this declaration.
While the husband told the sheriff he had no assets, he applied to the court for a stay of the warrant of execution against his property, pending the finalisation of proceedings to have the write set aside.
The husband questioned the amount claimed in the warrant of execution against his property, but did not deny he was far behind in paying his maintenance.
He, however, complained that he was kept in the dark as to the incurrence of the expenses claimed by the wife.
“Whatever amounts I had to pay after 2010, I have no knowledge of, as I was never contacted, never requested to pay anything, and if either the respondent (wife) or our daughter had any claim against me, I can only assume that they had abandoned such a claim,” he told the court.
The judge commented that this was the general theme of the husband’s response to the wife’s claim – he does not believe that he is liable, because he contends, he was never requested to make payment in all these many years.
He also denies he is liable to pay any maintenance for the period preceding 2010, when the child was still at school, because he said, without giving any more details, that he settled all fees directly with the school for her matric year.
“Tellingly, he does not dispute that he did not pay anything towards the costs of the tertiary education of their daughter, who studied towards and completed, at the University of the Witwatersrand, a Bachelor’s degree and thereafter a postgraduate degree, thus qualifying as a registered psychologist.”
The judge said it was undisputed that the wife was entitled to the costs of their daughter’s tuition. He added that the husband could not now bemoan the fact that he must pay up.
“The point is simply that, based on the order of this court, dated September 20, 1995, the applicant is liable for payment of the amount of R2 154 461.81, being in respect of arrear maintenance for his daughter, and which relate to inter alia cash payments and the costs of the child’s tertiary education …
“It does not avail the applicant to simply ‘kick up enough dust’ so as to cloud the issues and draw attention away from the salient unchallenged facts,” the judge said.
In turning down the stay of the execution of the writ, the judge said it was time that the wife, who carried the load over the last 20 years, be paid.
It is now a question of the husband either coming up with the R2m or facing his home being sold to recover the amount.
Pretoria News