12/04/2026 Bertus Preller Child born outside marriage, Child Maintenance, Children, Divorce, In Community of Property, Maintenance Court, Maintenance order enforcement, Rule 43, Rule 43 orders, Spousal Maintenance child born outside marriage, community of property divorce, costs in the divorce, divorce litigation South Africa, divorce proceedings South Africa, EH v SH, extra-marital child maintenance, family law South Africa, Forfeiture of benefits, Gauteng High Court, interim maintenance, interlocutory divorce relief, joint estate, joint property income, maintenance duty stepchild, minor child support, NM v BM, pendente lite maintenance, pendente lite relief, rental income divorce, Reyneke v Reyneke, Rule 43, Rule 43 limitations, South African divorce law, spousal maintenance, step-parent maintenance duty, trial court jurisdiction, Uniform Rules of Court, ZAGPJHC When Love Goes Wrong and the Law Says No: The Limits of Rule 43 and a Husband’s Failed Bid for Maintenance and Rental Income — C.M.N v N.N (2025/177461) [2026] ZAGPJHC 320 (31 March 2026). The Facts: An Unemployed Husband, an Extra-Marital Child, and a Contested Rental Income This is an opposed application brought in terms of Rule 43 of the Uniform Rules of Court… READ MORE
17/01/2026 Bertus Preller Abuse, Contumacious conduct, Costs, Divorce, Domestic Violence, Domestic Violence, Emotional Abuse, Financial Abuse, Forfeiture of Benefits, Forfeiture patrimonial benefits, Harassment, In Community of Property, Marital misconduct, Matrimonial property forfeiture, Physical Abuse, Psychological Abuse, Punitive costs orders, Sexual Abuse, Substantial misconduct, Substantial misconduct, Verbal Abuse costs in divorce, discretion of court, divorce proceedings South Africa, domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse, duration of marriage, Engelbrecht v Engelbrecht, financial delinquency, financial irresponsibility, Forfeiture of benefits, interim protection orders, marital breakdown, marriage in community of property, Mashola v Mashola, matrimonial property, municipal debt, no-fault divorce, patrimonial benefits, pension benefit misconduct, section 9(1) Divorce Act, spousal abuse, substantial misconduct, transfer of property, two-stage approach, unduly benefited test, value judgment, Wijker principles When Domestic Violence and Financial Delinquency Justify Forfeiture: Analysis of W.M.C.M v U.A.M (7390/2018) [2026] ZAGPPHC 5 (12 January 2026). The Factual Matrix: A Pattern of Misconduct and Financial Delinquency The parties in this matter were married in community of property on 16 December 2000. The marriage endured for approximately… READ MORE
15/08/2025 Bertus Preller Adultery, Divorce, Forfeiture of Benefits, Forfeiture patrimonial benefits, Matrimonial property forfeiture, Paternity Fraud, Substantial misconduct adultery divorce law, candidate attorney resources, divorce act section 9, divorce appeal court, divorce law practitioners, divorce proceedings South Africa, DNA paternity fraud, extramarital affairs legal consequences, family law South Africa, financial misconduct divorce, forfeiture application evidence, forfeiture patrimonial benefits, GEPF forfeiture, Government Employees Pension Fund, High Court Limpopo, joint estate division, law student materials, marital breakdown irretrievable, marriage community property, matrimonial assets protection, matrimonial misconduct, matrimonial property forfeiture, pension benefits forfeiture, pension interest forfeiture, perjury maintenance court, South African divorce law, substantial misconduct, substantial misconduct definition, undue benefit test Beyond Adultery: When Substantial Misconduct Justifies Total Forfeiture – M.C.M v M.S.M (Appeal) (HCA16/2024) [2025] ZALMPPHC 153 (11 August 2025). Factual Matrix: A Marriage Marred by Infidelity and Deception The parties entered into a marriage in community of property on 19 November 2015, with a significant age disparity - the… READ MORE