[imagesource: Getty Images]
A niggly little thing called the Prescription Act got in the way of one ex-hubby thinking he could walk off without ever paying maintenance.
Simon and Jill Arcus divorced in 1993, signing a consent paper detailing how Simon would have to pay spousal and child support until Jill remarried and their two kids could support themselves.
At some stage, the consent paper was turned into a court order, which both parties signed in agreement. But Simon ignored it, neglecting to pay any maintenance to his former wife or children.
Jill then finally took steps to enforce the maintenance order, even though it was in 2018, 25 years after her divorce.
At that stage, he was required to pay R3,5 million in arrears.
Simon began to pay the stipulated monthly amount but then approached the Cape Town High Court and later the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in an attempt to forgo paying the money he previously owed.
GroundUp has the details of the court proceedings:
Jill Arcus then obtained a writ of execution authorising the Sheriff to sell her former husband’s assets for the arrear maintenance he owed her.
After she obtained the writ of execution, Simon Arcus went to the Cape Town High Court for an order declaring that any arrear maintenance he owed had prescribed under the Prescription Act, because the claim was not enforced timeously.
But Simon’s application was dismissed after the judge stated that a maintenance order only expires after 30 years and not three years, as stipulated by the Prescription Act:
According to the judgment, written by Acting Justice John Smith, a maintenance order is a “judgment debt” in terms of the Prescription Act. (Prescription means that a legal claim will “expire” if it is not enforced within a specific time – usually three years.)
This means that a maintenance order will only “prescribe” 30 years after the order is made and not three years.
Simon then appealed to the SCA, but that was also thrown out.
The judge made the ruling thinking that a 30-year prescription period to enforce a claim for arrear maintenance would also be in the best interest of vulnerable people, such as divorced women and minor children.
After all that, Simon was whacked with a hefty bill to pay anyway.
This ruling could impact other divorced couples dealing with maintenance orders, meaning it may have a wider-ranging impact than just this one dispute.
You can read the ruling in full here.
[source:groundup]
[imagesource:instagram/britneyspears] When I first saw Britney Spears' latest Instagram...
[imagesource:rsaweb] Change a life. Connect a child. Did you know, that RSAWEB is on...
[imagesource:befunky] Fear can significantly influence women’s preference for immedia...
[imagesource:instagram/princeandprincessofwales] Cancer is increasingly happening in ad...
[imagesource:rawpixel] With statements like "South Africa is hanging on by a thread –...