04/02/2026 Bertus Preller Alimony, Costs, Family Advocate, Interim Maintenance, Maintenance, Mediation, Non-disclosure consequences, Pendente Lite, Rule 43, Rule 43 Applications, Rule 43 orders, Spousal Maintenance, Uberrimae fidei matrimonial proceedings, Uniform Form Rules of Court adverse costs orders family law, clean hands doctrine, contribution to legal costs, contribution towards costs requirements, custody and contact disputes, Du Preez v Du Preez, duty of disclosure in divorce, duty of support spouses, equitable relief divorce, false affidavits maintenance, Family Advocate role, family law dishonesty, financial disclosure matrimonial proceedings, interim maintenance South Africa, maintenance court jurisdiction, matrimonial property disputes, Mediation in Certain Divorce Matters Act, non-disclosure consequences, Office of Family Advocate, perjury in divorce proceedings, prima facie case legal costs, Rule 43 applications, Rule 43 costs orders, Rule 43(5) discretion, South African divorce law, spousal maintenance pendente lite, uberrimae fidei matrimonial proceedings, Uniform Rules of Court Rule 43, Van Rippen v Van Rippen When Clean Hands Matter: The Fatal Cost of Non-Disclosure in Rule 43 Applications – S.J. J v M.M. J (2025/056214) [2026] ZAGPJHC 57 (2 February 2026). Factual Matrix: A Rule 43 Application Gone Wrong The parties married on 13 October 2012 in Johannesburg, out of community of property with the accrual system. Two minor children were… READ MORE
21/11/2025 Bertus Preller 15(2)(a) matrimonial property act, Abuse, Actio communi dividundo, Alienation of immovable property, Dispensing with spousal consent, Divorce, Domestic Violence, Domestic Violence, In Community of Property, Matrimonial Properties Act, Plascon Evans Rule, Section 16(1) actio communi dividundo, alienation of immovable property, bona fide dispute of fact, bound co-ownership, credit agreements joint estate, dispensing with spousal consent, evidentiary burden motion proceedings, family law property disputes, free co-ownership, good cause to dispense with consent, joint estate, joint estate property sale, marriage in community of property, matrimonial property disputes, MEPF case, national credit act section 129, Plascon-Evans principles, prejudice to joint estate, private sale vs execution sale, reinstatement of credit agreement, Rule 46A, sale in execution, section 15(2)(a) matrimonial property act, section 15(2)(f) matrimonial property act, section 16(1) matrimonial property act, spousal consent requirements, unreasonable withholding of consent, withholding consent unreasonably Breaking the Deadlock: When Courts Override a Spouse’s Refusal to Sell Joint Estate Property – J.G.S v S.E.S and Others (A283/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 543 (21 November 2025). Introduction The Western Cape High Court's decision in J.G.S v S.E.S and Others (A283/2024) ZAWCHC 543 addresses a question of considerable practical importance in South African family law: when may… READ MORE
21/10/2025 Bertus Preller Abuse of Process, Alimony, Asset Disclosure, Children, Costs, Divorce, Fishing expedition discovery, Gender equality, Hostile Family Lawyers, Interim Maintenance, Irregular proceedings, Maintenance, Matrimonial proceedings discovery, Procedural Law, Procedure, Prolixity, Punitive Cost Orders, Rule 43, Rule 43 Applications, Rule 43 Contempt, Rule 43 Cost Contributions, Rule 43 orders, Rule 58 Access to Justice, accrual claims, attorney fees Rule 43, B.S v K.W.S 2025, catch me if you can divorce, Children's Best Interests, constitutional implications maintenance, contribution to legal costs, E v E full court, financial disclosure divorce, financially weaker spouse, full and frank disclosure, gender equality divorce, hiding assets divorce, interim relief pending divorce, interim spousal maintenance, KwaZulu-Natal High Court, length of court papers, maintenance pendente lite, matrimonial litigation, matrimonial property disputes, prolixity in divorce proceedings, relevant versus irrelevant evidence, Rule 43 applications, S.M v N.M 2024, South African Family Law, standard of living divorce, striking off applications, Uniform Rule 43 When Brevity Becomes Brutality: S.M v N.M (D6667/2024) [2024] ZAKZDHC 54 versus B.S v K.W.S (2025/027511) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1085 – Has Striking Off Rule 43 Applications for Prolixity Gone Too Far? Two Cases, Two Outcomes: The Factual Matrix of S.M v N.M and B.S v K.W.S The contrasting outcomes in S.M v N.M (D6667/2024) ZAKZDHC 54 (28 August 2024) and B.S… READ MORE
28/06/2025 Bertus Preller Actio communi dividundo, Customary Law, Customary Marriages, Divorce, In Community of Property, Marriage, Urgency actio communi dividundo, balance convenience equity, co-ownership disputes, community of property marriage, compelling spouse sell property, creditor action property, customary marriage property rights, divorce proceedings pending, foreclosure prevention, irreparable harm property, Johannesburg High Court, joint estate protection, lis pendens matrimonial matters, matrimonial deadlock, Matrimonial Property Act, matrimonial property disputes, minor children interests, property law South Africa, property sale court order, recognition customary marriage act, section 16 matrimonial property act, self representation matrimonial disputes, sheriff authorisation documents, South African Family Law, spousal consent immovable property, trust arrangements divorce proceedings, unreasonable withholding consent, urgency property matters When One Spouse Won’t Sell: Court Compels Property Sale to Prevent Foreclosure in I.M.R v N.M.D (2024/014513) [2025] ZAGPJHC (5 May 2025). Background: A Customary Marriage in Crisis and Property Under Threat The case of I.M.R v N.M.D presents a stark illustration of how matrimonial breakdown can threaten jointly owned property, particularly… READ MORE