Regspraak: Aanspraak op opbrengs van lewensversekering van versekerde lewe getroud in gemeenskap van goed

Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.47348/tsar/2023/i2a10
Mfb Reinecke, J. Sonnekus
{"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).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
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)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1