A Western Cape woman who married her father’s 90-year-old friend was unsuccessful in her quest of getting an order declaring that their marriage was in community of property.
The 60-year-old woman knew her husband since she was a child.
Sometime in 2017, her husband expressed his interest and they started dating.
They agreed to get married before the husband turns 90-years-old and they eventually tied the knot in October 2023 when he was 89 years old.
However, after a year of marriage, the husband wanted out of the marriage and filed for divorce a week before the wife’s application could be heard.
The wife sought relief at the Western High Court seeking an order declaring their Antenuptial Contract (ANC) invalid claiming that she was hoodwinked into signing it.
She said that throughout their conversations before their marriage, and during the organising of the wedding, they never addressed patrimonial matters concerning their marriage.
She said her intention was to have their marriage in community of property.
Explaining how she signed the ANC, she said her attorney, whom she had known for 20 years and trusted as a legal advisor for the past 10 years, called her days prior to her wedding and requested that she visits his office to sign a document which he described as “insignificant”, although it was related to the marriage.
She went to the office the next day and her attorney handed her the documents without explaining and she proceeded to sign without reading because she trusted her attorney.
The same day, her attorney’s colleague came to her husband’s house where he and two witnesses signed the ANC and other documents.
She admitted that she saw the attorney’s colleague at the house but denied that she signed any documents when they were at the house.
After their wedding, in May 2024, she said she overheard a discussion between two strangers in a coffee shop regarding an ANC and the implications of signing such a contract before the wedding.
She said that’s when her suspicion regarding the documents was triggered.
She called her attorney’s office and requested a copy of the document. On May 3, 2024, she obtained a copy of the document and to her dismay, she discovered that it was an ANC.
She then sought legal advice from a new attorney who then wrote to her old attorney and said: “It is our instruction that our client has reservations and concerns of what she signed to when signing the antenuptial contract hereinafter referred to as the ANC, with yourself on the morning of October 4, 2023 at your office.”
A detailed reply was sent back detailing how the signing process was conducted and it was also mentioned that the wife was given an explanation about the documents prior to her signing.
It was said that she was also present during the ANC at her husband’s house, she signed documents, and the two witnesses who were present, were people known to her, one was her friend and the other lady worked for her.
However, the wife disputed the replies sent to her new attorney, she raised allegations of fraud, deceit, and unscrupulous conduct by her former attorney.
To support her case, she obtained affidavits from the two witnesses, both witnesses denied that she signed the documents in their presence.
In his defence, her first attorney provided the court with numerous WhatsApp messages where they discusses the ANC prior to the wedding.
From the messages, it was said the wife clearly indicated that she understood the ANC and said she possessed her own resources and she did not want her husband’s financial support.
When making an order, the judge said in light of the pending divorce proceedings, the only appropriate order was to dismiss the application.
“I make no finding regarding the merits of any of the parties’ contentions and the wife is free to take whatever action she may be advised to adopt,” said the judge.
The wife’s application was dismissed with costs.
IOL News