Parents who loaned their daughter R540,000 when she divorced her to buy her husband out of their marital home are now regretting their decision.
This is after they failed to prove to the Free State Supreme Court that the money was a contractual loan.
In 2018, when the daughter divorced her husband, she approached her father to help her with an amount equal to half the value of the property So that she could buy her man’s share. .
In his lawsuit, the father claimed that he had advanced the money to his daughter “as a parent looking after his child’s interests”, but expected her to pay back Money after the divorce.
The daughter said she received R300,000 from her father, the first plaintiff, and R240,000 from her mother , who was the second plaintiff in this case, as that part was paid from her bank account.
The daughter admitted that she had received the money, but she argued that her parents could not provide sufficient evidence that when they gave her the money, she intended to pay it back.
In order for the parents to be successful with their claim, they had to prove the existence of the loan and the specific terms of the loan agreement.
The lawsuit was dismissed with costs. According to the judgement, the father failed to prove the existence of contractual obligations and the conclusion of a contract from which rights could arise. The father also admitted during cross-examination that he and the daughter had not agreed on a repayment date.
Judge AJ de Kock said the father could not show: “< /span>The existence of a written, oral or implied loan agreement.”
“No essential terms of the alleged loan agreement were relied on. In particular, the date or time limit for the repayment of the alleged loan amount and the consequent breach of the alleged loan amount due to the [Subsidiary’s] failure to perform by an agreed date or period has not been asserted.
“ The father was required to prove the existence of a loan agreement, its terms and the consequent breach thereof after weighing the probabilities,” the judge said. “However, no prima facie evidence was presented that the money was advanced to the daughter and accepted by her as a repayable consumer loan.”
De Kock found that the father “certainly failed to prove the existence of a loan agreement with a contractual term of the daughter’s alleged maturity.
“All in all, his claim must be dismissed without further ado,” said the judge.
Support independent journalism by using the< span>Subscribe to the Sunday Times. Only 20 R for the first month.