Architect pleads poverty over ex-wife’s R500K maintenance bid

THE NORTH Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, has ordered a provisional sequestration of a man who owes more than half a million in arrears maintenance to his former wife.

The man and his wife are identified only as Mrs and Mr M because under the law, they cannot be named.

Before they divorced in 2018, the court ordered Mr M to pay monthly maintenance of R42 500 to his wife.

He fell into arrears in 2018 and the amount owed to Mrs M rose to R564 700, after which she issued a warrant of execution against him for non-payment.

He still did not pay, saying he could not afford to, and the amount owing continued to rise.

The sheriff of the court visited Mr M at his Midstream home after his former wife obtained a writ of execution against his assets in a bid to retrieve the outstanding maintenance due to her.

When the sheriff arrived at the house, his girlfriend said the house belonged to her and was in her name. Mr M also told the sheriff that he had no immovable assets which could be attached and later sold in a bid to recover the outstanding maintenance.

The sheriff returned empty-handed. Mrs M, however, would have none of it, and applied for a provisional sequestration order against her former husband.

She said that to her knowledge, her husband owned shares in a family trust and business, amounting to about R6 million. Thus, she said, while he claimed he did not have moveable property, he definitely had money.

The husband, on the other hand, said he was the director of the company in which the shares were held and, if sequestrated, he would have to resign as director.

That, the husband said, would not serve his wife’s purpose as he would not receive an income and therefore would not be able to pay maintenance.

The husband also disputed how the arrears amount of R564700 had been calculated.

An arbitrator who tried to resolve the issues between the couple, found that in October 2018, the husband was in arrears of R300700.

In August 2019, the registrar issued a warrant of execution against the assets of Mr M, for R564 700, as he kept falling behind.

The sheriff told the court that when he got to the house in the morning before the man left for work, he asked him to point out his moveable assets.

“No disposable assets were pointed out to me, nor could any be found after a diligent search by me,” the sheriff said.

He said Mr M was then asked whether he owned any immovable property which was executable, to which Mr M said he owned no property.

Mrs M, however, insisted that his estate be sequestrated so that a thorough search could be done into his assets, as she believed he was hiding the fact that he was wealthy.

Mr M did not deny that there was several million in his family trust and in shares, but said he could not touch this money.

He said his sequestration would not benefit his former wife as he would lose his directorship and would thus have no income to pay her in future.

He also accused his former wife of having “some ulterior purpose” for bringing the application.

However, Judge Nicolene Janse van Nieuwenhuizen said Mr M was a qualified architect and practised as such, and he would be in a position to earn an income, even if his estate was provisionally sequestrated.

Mr M will, at a later stage, have to provide reasons why he should not be declared bankrupt.