October 2015 – MHI Attorneys Blog
MEDE-EIENAARSKAP EN DIE ACTIO COMMUNI DIVIDENDO
October 30, 2015 MHI Law Comments 0 Comment
So jy en jou “BFF” besluit dat dit ‘n uitstekende belegging sal wees om daardie oulike meenthuis saam te koop in Mouille Punt. Alles gaan goed vir ‘n paar jaar en dan kom die groot stryery. Nou wil “BFF” kop uittrek & eis betaling van haar halwe aandeel. Hoe nou gemaak?
Hierdie is ‘n al te bekende scenario en word goed vasgevang in die uitdrukking “communio est mater rixarum “, vertaal as “mede-eienaarskap is die moeder van geskille “.
Mede-eienaarskap van onroerende eiendom word uitdagend wanneer een of al die mede-eienaars besluit om weg te stap & die partye kan dan nie kan saamstem oor hoe die eiendom moet onderverdeel word nie.
Dit is waar die actio communi dividendo inkom. Volgens hierdie regsremedie het ‘n mede-eienaar die vermoë om sy aandeel in die eiendom vervreem & dienooreenkomstig daarvoor vergoed te word. ‘n Hof is bevoeg om enige van die volgende bevele in hierdie omstandighede te maak: a) Onderverdeling van die eiendom, indien dit prakties sou wees;b) Verkoop van die eiendom en verdeling van die netto opbrengs tussen mede- eienaars;c) Oordrag van die eiendom aan een van die mede-eienaars teen betaling aan die ander mede- eienaars. Die bogenoemde is nie uitputtend nie & die howe het ‘n diskresie om enige bevel te maak wat regverdig en billik in die omstandighede is, byvoorbeeld waar een van die mede-eienaars okkupasie van die eiendom geniet, of die uitgawes ten opsigte van die eiendom gedra het (bv instandhouding en belastings), kan die hof enige aanpassing maak, wat die betaling wat mede-eienaars sou ontvang betref.
Dit is noemenswaardig dat waar ‘n eis vir onderverdeling van ‘n eiendom wat gesamentlik besit word hangende is, die mede-eienaars nog steeds hul aandeel mag vervreem. In Vorster en ander teen Vorster en ander ( CA366 / 2011 ) [ 2013 ] ZAECGHC , is bevind dat daar geen basis bestaan “where one or more co-owners have instituted claims for partition of a jointly owned property the co-owners may not alienate their shares until finalization of the pending claims. … such barring of an owner from alienating his or her share of the property would make no sense, for the (proposed) alienation would effectively be giving effect to the pending claim.
Die hof bevind verder dat :
“any right to claim under actio communi dividundo does not entitle the respondents to acquire the appellants share at their (the respondents’) price. The right of a co-owner to alienate his or her property freely and without reference to co-owners is entrenched in our law.”
Die enigste geval waar ‘n mede-eienaar verhoed sal word om aan te dring op verdeling van die eiendom is waar hy ‘n ooreenkoms met die ander mede-eienaars gesluit het om dit nie te doen binne ‘n bepaalde tydperk nie. Die onderliggende beginsels van die actio communi dividendo is volledig in Matadin v Parma en Ander (4638/2009) [ 2010 ] ZAKZPHC uiteengesit, waarin die Hof gelas het dat die betrokke eiendom op openbare veiling verkoop moet word, met ‘n reserwe prys en die netto opbrengs verdeel moet word tussen die mede-eienaars .
So, selfs al is die howe in staat om tot jou redding te kom as jy jou mede-eienaarskap in ‘n eiendom wil beëindig, is daar niks wat jou verhoed om jou onverdeelde aandeel te verkoop nie.
CO-OWNERSHIP & THE ACTIO COMMUNI DIVIDENDO
So you & your BFF decide that it would be a great investment to buy that quaint townhouse in Mouille Point as an investment. All goes well for a few years & then comes the big blow out between you. Now BFF wants out & demands payment of her half share. What to do?
This scenario is an all too familiar one and is well captured in the expression “communio est mater rixarum”, translated as “co-ownership is the mother of disputes”.
Co-ownership of immovable property becomes challenging when one or all of the co-owners decide to step away & the parties then cannot agree on how the property should be subdivided.
This is where the actio communi dividendo comes in. This action affords a co-owner the means to have his undivided share in the property separated & to be compensated accordingly. A court is competent to make any of the following orders in these circumstances:
a) Subdivision of the property, if this is practical;
b) Sale of the property & division of the proceeds between co-owners;
c) Transfer of the property to one of the co-owners against payment to the other co-owners.
The above is not exhaustive & the courts have a discretion to make any order that is fair and equitable in the circumstances, for example where one of the co-owners has enjoyed occupation of the property, or carried expenses in respect of the property (e.g. maintenance, rates & taxes), the court may make any adjustment between the co-owners as to the payment received for their share in the property.
It is noteworthy to mention that where a claim for subdivision of a jointly owned property is pending, the co-owners may still alienate their shares. In Vorster and Others v Vorster and Others (CA366/2011)  ZAECGHC, it was held that no legal basis can be found to support that “where one or more co-owners have instituted claims for partition of a jointly owned property the co-owners may not alienate their shares until finalization of the pending claims. … such barring of an owner from alienating his or her share of the property would make no sense, for the (proposed) alienation would effectively be giving effect to the pending claim.”
The only instance where a co-owner is precluded from insisting on partition of the property is where he has entered into an agreement with the other co-owners not to do so within a specified period.
The underlying principles of the actio communi dividendo is fully discussed in Matadin v Parma and Others (4638/2009)  ZAKZPHC in which it was ordered that the property in question be sold by public auction, with a reserve price & the net proceeds be divided and paid to the co-owners.
So, eventhough the courts will come to the aid of a co-owner who wishes to part ways with his undivided share in the co-owned property, nothing stops a co-owner from alienating his share in the property, should he be in a position to do so.