Uncategorized | VisagieVos
She wanted repayment of R26 000.00 that she had given him in 1994 and 1996 for a business he was involved in.
She wanted R6.5 million to make up for the financial benefits she would have enjoyed had they concluded the marriage, including amounts for the use and enjoyment of the house commensurate with the lifestyle enjoyed and maintained by the parties at the time of their cohabitation. She also wanted maintenance of R8 500.00 a month for 25 years.
Finally she wanted R250 000.00 in damages for breach of promise, impairment to her personal dignity and her reputation.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized on January 20, 2015 by VVAttorneys.
VISAGIEVOS PARTNERS WIN THE CAPE TOWN ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION GOLFDAY CUP
Two Partners form VisagieVos Attorneys, Werner Greeff and Jaco van der Westhuizen have won the 33rd Annual Cape Town Attorney’s Association Golf day held at Mowbray Golf Club on 3 October 2014.
The “Attorneys and Advocate Golf Day” as it is known by the legal fraternity is an annual golf day arranged by the Cape Town Attorneys Association in which Practicing Attorney members of the Cape Law Society as well as Advocates and Supreme Court Judges compete against each other in three different competitions on the Golf Day. The competition has been held every year since 1981 and VisagieVos had previously also won the competition in 1995.
Our partners won the floating trophy for the Attorneys in the 2 Ball Better ball competition between all the Attorneys playing on the day and Werner Greeff also won the golf day for the player with the lowest individual score. He further contributed towards the Advocates Cup in which he and his partner Adv Henco De La Rey also won the Advocates competition.
Werner Greeff is a partner in the Commercial and Property law department and head of the Estate Department and Jaco vd Westhuizen heads up the Insurance Law Department and we congratulate them on their performance and achievement.
Die vraag op almal se lippe is, wat kan ek doen aan my buurman se bome en plante wat skade aan my eiendom en ongemak vir my veroorsaak? Hy het natuurlik ‘n reg om sy eiendom te benut soos hy wil, maar wat van my reg om my eiendom te benut en te geniet? Sy reg om sy eiendom te geniet kan tog sekerlik nie ten koste van ‘n ander persoon wees nie?
Bome met laterale wortelstelsels is gewoonlik die sondebok in dispute tussen bure. In die saak Bingham v City Council of Johannesburg 1934 WLD 180 het die munisipaliteit bome langs ‘n voetpad geplant vir versieringsdoeleindes. Die probleem was dat die bome wat hulle gekies het, eikebome was wat sterk laterale wortelstelsels het wat die omliggende grond dreineer. Die blomme en struike in Bingham se tuin het as gevolg hiervan in die slag gebly en, nog erger, die sterk wortelstelsel was besig om sy weg te vind na die huis se fondasie. Omdat die boom se wortelstelsel ‘n bedreiging vir die eiendom (die woning) ingehou het, het die hof die munisipaliteit beveel om die bome te verwyder.
In Vogel v Crewe and another  1 All SA 587 (T) is die kwessie van boomwortels weer eens in die hof bespreek. Vogel en Crewe was bure en Crewe was van mening dat ‘n boom wat twee meter van die gemeenskaplike grensmuur geplant was, die oorsaak van al die probleme op sy eiendom was. Volgens hom het die boom se wortelstelsel skade aan die grensmuur aangerig en blare van die boom het in sy swembad geval en ook sy geute en rioolstelsel verstop. Die hof se benadering was gebaseer op ‘n objektiewe toets van redelikheid. Hulle het die voordele wat die bewaring van die boom inhou, soos die visuele genot, skaduwee en produksie van suurstof, opgeweeg teen die ongerief wat dit vir Crewe veroorsaak het. Crewe was egter nie in staat om te bewys dat die probleem met die blare in sy swembad, geute en rioolstelsel afkomstig was van die spesifieke boom nie en die hof het bevind dat die grensmuur maklik herstel kon word. Geen drastiese aksie, soos die verwydering van die boom, was dus nodig nie en Crewe se aansoek het nie geslaag nie.
Uit die voorgaande is dit duidelik dat die hof slegs die verwydering van ‘n boom sal gelas indien die boom se wortelstelsel ‘n werklike en onmiddellike bedreiging vir die eiendom inhou. Hulle sal nie die verwydering van ‘n boom gelas weens takke wat oor ‘n muur hang of blare wat in ‘n erf val nie.
In Malherbe v Ceres Municipality 1951 (4) SA 510 A is bevestig dat indien jou buurman se boomtakke oor jou muur groei of die wortelstelsel jou eiendom binnedring en hy weier om dit te verwyder, jy die reg het om die takke en wortelstelsel by die grensmuur af te kap.
Hopelik sal julle in staat wees om boomverwante geskille op ‘n hoflike wyse te skik, en onthou, jy het ook die reg om jou eiendom ten volle te geniet.
Taking the time to draft a will can leave you with the peace of mind that your assets will be distributed according to your wishes as far as possible.
Your will should reflect exactly how you want your assets to be dealt with after your death and should not be contra bonos mores (against good morals). It should also not amount to “ruling from the grave”.