The sale of a luxury home valued at nearly R7-million has been put on hold after a woman urgently turned to court as she claimed that her husband, from whom she is divorcing, is trying to sell the house in a clandestine manner behind her back.
The woman told the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, that the house, situated in a nature reserve estate at Hartbeespoort, has been their matrimonial home. She said that both she and her now estranged husband still live in the house.
Judge Jabulani Nyathi was told that the wife got wind that her husband is selling the house via a second party, but he never informed her about this. It was only after she saw the house advertised by an estate agent that she realised what was happening.
The wife claimed that this is a ploy by her husband so that once their divorce is before court and the time has come for them to split the assets, the house would not form part of the estate. She feared that he would pocket the proceeds of the sale and she would end up with nothing. The parties had been married out of community of property with the accrual system.
The husband arranged for the matrimonial home to be built in 2019 and 2020. Upon its completion, the couple moved into the home in 2021. The wife said the money used for the acquisition and construction of the matrimonial home was obtained from corporate entities, and that her husband appointed an associate as a director of some of the corporate entities.
According to the wife, her husband registered their luxury home in the name of his associate. This, she said, was merely a front as he wanted to hide the fact that he actually owned the property. The wife maintained that the associate did not contribute anything towards the property, and she in fact believed that he was not even aware that he was registered as the owner.
She told the court that she believes that the husband devised and initiated such a deliberate scheme because he was aware that their marriage may well end in divorce and that she would then be entitled to share in the accrual of his estate. "He wished the matrimonial home to be excluded from his estate so that it would not be included in the calculation of the accrual of his estate upon divorce," the wife said.
The wife said it was only after she had served the divorce summons on her husband that she became aware of his scheme. She discovered that he had given a mandate to an estate agent to put the property on the market for a purchase price of nearly R7-million. She also ascertained that the estate agent had listed the matrimonial home for sale on their website and that an agent had taken numerous pictures of the house, which was offered for sale. According to the wife, the pictures were taken clandestinely when she was not home.
The husband, meanwhile, simply denied that he was embroiled in a scheme to deprive his wife of the proceeds of the house. He said the property did not belong to him but to his associate.
The wife told Judge Nyathi that the matter was urgent, as she has no idea whether the house has been sold already or whether it is about to be transferred. However, this can take place within a very short period, and it is accordingly necessary for her to approach the court as a matter of urgency, she submits.
The court ruled in her favour, and the house may not be sold pending the final divorce order.