Latest / Drive with John Perlman / Father declared unworthy to inheritance

Transcript

Father declared unworthy to inheritance · Drive with John Perlman

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: 702 Drive with John Perlman, brought to you by Telcom Business.
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: Possible begins here on 702. Okay, let's pay attention to this.
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: As I said, prompted by a story on the independent
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: online site, iol.co.za, a story by the journalist Sine Nklaantla Masilela.
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: Starts like this. The South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: has declared a father unworthy to inherit from his late
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: son's estate worth more than 716,000 rand after finding that
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: he had been virtually absent from the young man's life
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: for 29 years. And the second paragraph makes this point.
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: The court ruled that the father's complete abandonment of his
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: son from infancy until his death at the age of 29, justified,
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: disqualifying him from inheriting under the common law principle of
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: unworthiness to inherit. There's so much stuff there that I
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: must admit I didn't know anything about. So let's get
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: into it with somebody who does. Minentia Kumalo is a
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: legal practitioner and joins us now on 702 Drive.
• 1:10
  Speaker 2: Ms.
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: Kamala, welcome and thanks very much for your time. I've
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: never read about this before, but that makes me wonder if,
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: you know, assume that it's not common when perhaps it
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: might be. Is this the kind of thing that presiding officers,
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: judicial officers do on a regular basis? Good afternoon to you.
• 1:30
  Speaker 3: Afternoon, John.
• 1:32
  Speaker 2: How are you?
• 1:33
  Speaker 3: Yes.
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: Well, thanks. And you?
• 1:35
  Speaker 3: Good, thank you. It doesn't happen often.
• 1:38
  Speaker 2: It's very, very rare that we see such cases, but
• 1:45
  Speaker 2: it is not unprecedented like we see with the swan
• 1:49
  Speaker 2: before because there has been a previous case where a
• 1:52
  Speaker 2: parent was deemed to be unworthy to inherit from a
• 1:57
  Speaker 2: deceased estate where the deceased passed That means that the
• 2:03
  Speaker 2: deceased had no will, like in this case where the
• 2:07
  Speaker 2: gentleman died in 2021 without a will.
• 2:09
  Speaker 3: Right. So, yeah.
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: Yeah, no, no, it's interesting. And now maybe just to
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: continue painting the picture so everyone has an idea. Now,
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: the young man's mother was still alive and she actually
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: went to the court and said, look, you know, ordinarily
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: this would be an equal split between myself and the
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: boy's father. But I'm advancing reasons why, in fact, the
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: father shouldn't get anything. Is that a precondition of a
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: decision like this? that somebody has to object?
• 2:46
  Speaker 3: No. Like I said, it's not very common.
• 2:49
  Speaker 2: So in this case, the mother was actually trying to
• 2:53
  Speaker 2: get the court to rule the father as a non-parent.
• 2:57
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 2:57
  Speaker 2: And so when you die interstate, which means that you
• 3:00
  Speaker 2: die without her will, ordinarily it goes to your spouse.
• 3:04
  Speaker 2: Or if you don't have a spouse and you have children,
• 3:06
  Speaker 2: it goes to your children. But when you don't have both,
• 3:09
  Speaker 2: it then goes to your parents.
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 3:11
  Speaker 2: Like you had stated, the father would have then gotten
• 3:13
  Speaker 2: half of the estate and the mother get the other half. Now,
• 3:17
  Speaker 2: in this situation, the mother approached the high court to
• 3:20
  Speaker 2: have the father declared as a non-parent. However, the court
• 3:25
  Speaker 2: decided to say, no, he is still a.
• 3:27
  Speaker 3: Parent, but he's not worthy to benefit from the estate.
• 3:32
  Speaker 2: Yes. So in situations like this where perhaps he was
• 3:36
  Speaker 2: a deadbeat, you know, obviously it would take the court
• 3:38
  Speaker 2: to rule on someone's unworthiness or if the parent had
• 3:42
  Speaker 2: abused the child. So there are instances where a court
• 3:46
  Speaker 2: would be willing to entertain such a matter like they
• 3:49
  Speaker 2: did with this one in extreme, extreme circumstances and would
• 3:54
  Speaker 2: depend on the facts before the court.
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: I mean, what almost happens is somebody finds themselves on trial,
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: not literally, of course, in terms, but their conduct is
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: up for scrutiny. Would both parties lead evidence as if
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: it was, you know, in effect a trial? Presumably the
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: father had something to say as well.
• 4:21
  Speaker 3: Yes, they would ordinarily. But in this matter, it was unopposed.
• 4:25
  Speaker 2: So the judge made a decision just based on the
• 4:28
  Speaker 2: mother's papers. But let's say it was opposed. The father
• 4:32
  Speaker 2: would then advance evidence to say that, no, I was
• 4:36
  Speaker 2: involved in my child's life in such and such instance.
• 4:40
  Speaker 2: I contributed by taking.
• 4:43
  Speaker 3: Him to school.
• 4:43
  Speaker 2: I came to see him and everything that they would
• 4:46
  Speaker 2: have done to contribute to.
• 4:48
  Speaker 3: Said child's life.
• 4:50
  Speaker 2: But lack thereof then.
• 4:53
  Speaker 3: Means that you really are a deadbeat.
• 4:54
  Speaker 2: So a parent should be able to list the things
• 4:59
  Speaker 2: or in ways that they have contributed to.
• 5:02
  Speaker 3: Their child's life and livelihood.
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: Does the ruling pronounce the father not a parent? I mean,
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: because that would be a fact of biology and law,
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: I would have thought. They're merely pronouncing that in terms
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: of the matter under discussion, i.e. as to whether you
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: have a moral entitlement, I don't know if moral is
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: the right word there, to anything from this, sadly, deceased
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: young man, that's the only thing at issue. I mean,
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: it doesn't, it has no relevance should there be any
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: other dispute in regard to the relationship between husband and wife.
• 5:46
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 5:47
  Speaker 2: So the court didn't pronounce him as a non-parent because
• 5:51
  Speaker 2: they can't do that. He is the biological parent of
• 5:54
  Speaker 2: this deceased young man. However, he's not worthy of to
• 6:00
  Speaker 2: benefit from this young man's estate because he was not
• 6:06
  Speaker 2: there in his 29 years of life. So for almost
• 6:09
  Speaker 2: three decades, he didn't contribute anything. What I read in
• 6:12
  Speaker 2: the case, the mother did try to take him to
• 6:14
  Speaker 2: maintenance court, but it was very sporadic. So there was
• 6:18
  Speaker 2: no role that he played in this young man's life.
• 6:21
  Speaker 2: So then the court had to make a determination on
• 6:24
  Speaker 2: the worthiness of the father to inherit. They can't declare.
• 6:28
  Speaker 3: Him as a non-biological father.
• 6:31
  Speaker 2: Like you said, that would be for biology and labs
• 6:35
  Speaker 2: to do that.
• 6:36
  Speaker 3: We don't do that.
• 6:37
  Speaker 2: So it was just to pronounce on the worthiness to inherit.
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: And just finally, as a way of getting clarity on
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: what interstate succession law says, unless an issue is raised,
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: do a certain set of principles automatically kick into action? Parents, dependents, etc.
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: And the court divides it all up equally. It's according
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: to a formula, is it? Yes.
• 7:08
  Speaker 2: So if You die interstate, which means that you don't
• 7:13
  Speaker 2: have a will, and you have a spouse.
• 7:15
  Speaker 3: Everything then goes to your spouse.
• 7:17
  Speaker 2: If you have a spouse and children, everything is then
• 7:20
  Speaker 2: divided equally between your spouse and your children. If you
• 7:24
  Speaker 2: just have children, it's then divided between your children.
• 7:28
  Speaker 3: If you don't have.
• 7:29
  Speaker 2: Children or a spouse, but you have your parents... it
• 7:32
  Speaker 2: then goes to your parents. If you don't have parents
• 7:35
  Speaker 2: or spouse or.
• 7:36
  Speaker 3: Children, it then goes to your siblings.
• 7:40
  Speaker 2: So it's a breakdown.
• 7:42
  Speaker 3: Formula, if I could put it that way, yes. So
• 7:44
  Speaker 3: it goes to those closest to you.
• 7:47
  Speaker 2: And then if you don't have those, and then it
• 7:50
  Speaker 2: goes to the next one who's in line. So it's spouse, children.
• 7:54
  Speaker 2: If you don't have those, then it's your parents, siblings,
• 7:57
  Speaker 2: and so on and so forth.
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Minente Kumala. I found the case very,
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: very interesting. And as with all these matters, it's partly
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: about the law, but it's also the way the law
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: speaks to the relationships we have with each other. If
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: you've got something to add, maybe a direct experience of this,
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: do give us a call on 011-883-0702.