Abandoning the Spouse, Abandoning the House? Abandonment of Co-Ownership Shares in Immovable Property [Discussion of M V M (10751/2000) [2020] ZAGPPHC 155 (20 March 2020)]
{"title":"Abandoning the Spouse, Abandoning the House? Abandonment of Co-Ownership Shares in Immovable Property [Discussion of M V M (10751/2000) [2020] ZAGPPHC 155 (20 March 2020)]","authors":"R. Cramer","doi":"10.47348/slr/2022/i3a10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The case of M v M (10751/2000) [2020] ZAGPPHC 155 (20 March 2020) (“M v M”) is novel in its finding that the abandonment of immovable property is possible in South African law. It is also novel in finding that the requisite intention to abandon a co-ownership share in immovable property could be inferred from the facts of the case. Past case law concerning the abandonment of immovable property always failed to make a finding of abandonment as the requisite intention could never be established. This approach was consistent with our courts’ unwillingness to infer an intention to abandon valuable property in the absence of clear intention to do so. This case note seeks to critique the decision of the court in M v M in light of a legal framework in which the abandonment of landownership does not appear possible given the principle of publicity. It further seeks to ask if there were other avenues available to the court to reach what was an undeniably just outcome on the set of facts before the court.","PeriodicalId":325707,"journal":{"name":"Stellenbosch Law Review","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stellenbosch Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47348/slr/2022/i3a10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The case of M v M (10751/2000) [2020] ZAGPPHC 155 (20 March 2020) (“M v M”) is novel in its finding that the abandonment of immovable property is possible in South African law. It is also novel in finding that the requisite intention to abandon a co-ownership share in immovable property could be inferred from the facts of the case. Past case law concerning the abandonment of immovable property always failed to make a finding of abandonment as the requisite intention could never be established. This approach was consistent with our courts’ unwillingness to infer an intention to abandon valuable property in the absence of clear intention to do so. This case note seeks to critique the decision of the court in M v M in light of a legal framework in which the abandonment of landownership does not appear possible given the principle of publicity. It further seeks to ask if there were other avenues available to the court to reach what was an undeniably just outcome on the set of facts before the court.
抛弃配偶,抛弃房子?放弃不动产共有权股份[M V M (10751/2000) [2020] ZAGPPHC 155(2020年3月20日)]
M v M (10751/2000) [2020] ZAGPPHC 155(2020年3月20日)案(“M v M”)的新颖之处在于,它发现在南非法律中可以放弃不动产。它还发现,可以从案件的事实推断出放弃不动产共同所有权份额的必要意图,这一点也很新颖。过去关于不动产放弃的判例法总是不能认定放弃,因为必要的意图永远无法确立。这种做法与我们的法院不愿在没有明确意图的情况下推断放弃有价值财产的意图是一致的。本案例说明试图在法律框架下,根据公开原则,放弃土地所有权似乎是不可能的,以此来批评法院在M . v . M案中的判决。它还试图询问,法院是否有其他途径可以就法院面前的一系列事实达成无可否认的公正结果。