An elderly woman, who wanted to sell a guest house she had been running for over 20 years with her late husband, had to take his three sons to court to compel them to sign the deed of sale.
Margaret Hart, 78, was married to the late Peter Dionysius Hart out of community of property in December 1984.
The husband already had three boys from his previous marriages, and together, they had one boy.
From 2004, the couple conducted a guest house business in Camps Bay, Cape Town.
Before the husband died in September 2013, he left a will which was executed after his death.
-
Court rules Cape Town house left to six brothers can be sold after a bitter dispute
-
SCA rules against property owner who tried to remove occupants by cancelling lease and changing locks
-
Pretoria property owner ordered to pay back over R600,000 after he knowingly sold land with high risk of sinkhole formation
The property was subsequently registered in the names of his four sons while the wife continued operating the business.
But due to her age, she was unable to continue running the business 24/7.
So in 2023, she decided to sell the property with a view of reinvesting the proceeds of the property in a financial investment and use the interests for her upkeep.
She said she needed financial security without working and to continue living her life.
She told the Western Cape High Court that she procured a purchaser who was willing to purchase the property for R17 million.
However, she was unable to sell the property as her three stepsons refused to sign the deed sale.
In their defence, the stepsons argued that the will prohibited her from selling the property as well as investing the money to live off the interest.
They said that according to the will, the property belonged to them after they were appointed as executors of their late father’s estate.
They provided the court a paragraph from the will which read:
“I hereby bequeath my entire estate movable and immovable property, that which I now possess or may possess in the future, whether in expectancy, contingency or otherwise, whether situate and nothing excepted to my four sons; Walter Reginald Hart, Robert George Hart, Toby Edward Hart and Brendon Hart, in equal shares.”
Meanwhile, the wife relied on a special bequests made on the will which read:
“I wish for my wife, Margaret, to enjoy the full usufruct of all my assets upon my death. She may dispose of any assets and invest the proceeds in any other asset that she wishes with the proviso that the executor/s of my estate approve of the investment, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld…
“The comfort and well-being of my wife, Margaret, is to be the utmost considered criterion by my executor/s. Upon Margaret’s death, the entire proceeds of the remaining assets in my estate shall resolve (sic) on my four sons in equal shares as provided for above.”
The stepsons said their stepmother’s interpretation of the will was flawed. They said that their father was a seasoned businessman in property, as a property valuer as well as an estate agent, and by this virtue, he knew that by placing them as the owners of the property, they had to consent to its sale.
They further argued that their father’s intention was to enable them to veto any proposed sale and investment of the proceeds, because he knew that any sale of the property and investment of the proceeds would affect their rights.
In addition, they said their father was concerned that their stepmother was easily influenced by her brother and she would use the estate to financially support her sibling on his ‘dubious’ financial endeavours at their expense as heirs.
According to them, this issue weighed heavily in their father’s mind and a result, when he executed the will, his intention was never aimed at providing their stepmother with money but merely with usufruct over their property.
Acting judge Zuko Mapoma said he was not persuaded that the extrinsic evidence provided by the stepsons, which was largely speculative and deviated from the words as expressed in the will, was permissible in ascertaining the intention of their late father.
“It cannot be concluded that the testator (father) intended that the decision of the applicant (wife) to sell the property would be subject to the consent of the respondents (stepsons).
“I am satisfied that based on the clear words expressed in the will, the testator intended to give his wife, the applicant, an absolute right to dispose of the property,” said Mapoma.
Mapoma ordered the stepsons to sign the R17 million Deed of Sale within 10 days of granting of the order.
si*******************@io*.za
IOL News
