{"title":"Regspraak: Aanspraak op opbrengs van lewensversekering van versekerde lewe getroud in gemeenskap van goed","authors":"Mfb Reinecke, J. Sonnekus","doi":"10.47348/tsar/2023/i2a10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the case under discussion the insured two weeks before his death took out a large life policy on his own life. At the time of his death he was married in community of property to his wife. The Gauteng local division was called upon to decide whether or not the proceeds of the life policy fell into the joint estate of the spouses. The decision of the court was that the proceeds did not fall into the joint estate because it was paid after the joint estate was dissolved by the death of the spouse. The court relied on a few prior decisions to the same effect. After an analysis of the principles involved we suggest that the proceeds should in principle form part of the spouses’ former joint estate. The life insurance policy was concluded during the subsistence of the marriage in community of property. The policy conferred on the insured the right to the sum insured on his death. This right vested on conclusion of the contract, although it was subject to a time clause and it became enforceable only upon the death of the life insured. It is not a fictitious but an existing right which is capable of being ceded. This right falls into the joint estate: it was created by the policy prior to the death of the spouse and consequently prior to the dissolution of the marriage in community of property. There was indeed no other estate into which this right could have fallen. This means that the spouses were equally entitled to and liable under the contract of insurance. It was, so to speak, a debt due to the former joint estate. Hence each spouse must in principle receive one half of the death benefit. The issue involved has not yet been finally laid to rest, although the supreme court of appeal approvingly referred to the decisions on which the court in the Maqubela case relied. The widow of the late insured also claimed that since the deceased left no will, she was entitled to inherit from her late husband’s estate as an intestate heir. The question arose whether she was entitled to benefit from the death of her husband. This aspect is not dealt with in the present discussion but in a separate article (Sonnekus “Gierigheid is die wortel van alle kwaad” 2023 TSAR 175).","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47348/tsar/2023/i2a10","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
In the case under discussion the insured two weeks before his death took out a large life policy on his own life. At the time of his death he was married in community of property to his wife. The Gauteng local division was called upon to decide whether or not the proceeds of the life policy fell into the joint estate of the spouses. The decision of the court was that the proceeds did not fall into the joint estate because it was paid after the joint estate was dissolved by the death of the spouse. The court relied on a few prior decisions to the same effect. After an analysis of the principles involved we suggest that the proceeds should in principle form part of the spouses’ former joint estate. The life insurance policy was concluded during the subsistence of the marriage in community of property. The policy conferred on the insured the right to the sum insured on his death. This right vested on conclusion of the contract, although it was subject to a time clause and it became enforceable only upon the death of the life insured. It is not a fictitious but an existing right which is capable of being ceded. This right falls into the joint estate: it was created by the policy prior to the death of the spouse and consequently prior to the dissolution of the marriage in community of property. There was indeed no other estate into which this right could have fallen. This means that the spouses were equally entitled to and liable under the contract of insurance. It was, so to speak, a debt due to the former joint estate. Hence each spouse must in principle receive one half of the death benefit. The issue involved has not yet been finally laid to rest, although the supreme court of appeal approvingly referred to the decisions on which the court in the Maqubela case relied. The widow of the late insured also claimed that since the deceased left no will, she was entitled to inherit from her late husband’s estate as an intestate heir. The question arose whether she was entitled to benefit from the death of her husband. This aspect is not dealt with in the present discussion but in a separate article (Sonnekus “Gierigheid is die wortel van alle kwaad” 2023 TSAR 175).
在讨论的案例中,被保险人在去世前两周为自己的生命购买了一份大额人寿保险。在他去世时,他与妻子以财产共有的方式结婚。豪登省地方法院被要求决定人寿保险的收益是否属于配偶的共同财产。法院的裁决是,这笔款项不属于共同遗产,因为它是在配偶死亡导致共同遗产解散后支付的。法院依据了先前的几项判决,具有同样的效力。在对所涉及的原则进行分析之后,我们建议,所得款项原则上应构成配偶以前共同财产的一部分。人身保险是在财产共同婚姻存续期间订立的。保险单赋予被保险人在其死亡时获得保险金额的权利。这一权利在订立合同时即获得,尽管它受时间条款的限制,而且只有在被保险人死亡时才可执行。它不是一种虚构的权利,而是一种可以割让的既存权利。这一权利属于共同财产:它是在配偶死亡之前,因此在财产共同婚姻解除之前由政策规定的。的确,没有别的阶级可以享有这种权利。这意味着配偶在保险合同下享有同等的权利和责任。可以说,这是一笔欠前共同财产的债务。因此,配偶双方原则上必须领取死亡抚恤金的一半。尽管最高上诉法院赞同地提到了Maqubela案中法院所依据的判决,但所涉及的问题尚未最终得到解决。已故被保险人的遗孀还声称,由于死者没有留下遗嘱,她有权作为无遗嘱继承人继承已故丈夫的遗产。问题是她是否有权从她丈夫的死亡中得到好处。这方面不在本讨论中讨论,而是在另一篇文章中讨论(Sonnekus“Gierigheid is die wortel van alle kwaad”2023 TSAR 175)。