After a property deal soured, a pensioner has successfully regained ownership of his home after the Western Cape High Court ruled that his daughter breached a sale agreement by failing to pay the R650,000 purchase price, despite her taking transfer of the home more than three years after concluding a sale agreement.
The court rejected the daughter’s claims that her father lacked mental capacity due to dementia and found her attempts to retain ownership were unsupported by the terms of the agreement.
In the ruling, Acting Judge of the High Court, Siviwe Yake, highlighted the need to protect older persons from potential financial abuse and property dispossession, particularly within family relationships.
The agreement between the two provided that transfer of the property would be effected only on payment of the purchase price, with the father reserving the right to cancel the agreement in the event of any breach of its terms.
According to the daughter, her father, who she intended to continue caring for while he enjoyed the fruits of the property in question, intended to transfer ownership of the property to her, “motivated by his fear of being taken advantage of by his sons”.
However, as litigation unfolded, the daughter claimed that her father had dementia and consequently lacked the “necessary understanding of the consequences of these proceedings”.
She had then approached a doctor on suspicion that her father may be suffering from dementia, “citing behavioural changes”. The doctor referred the father for further assessment, where a provisional diagnosis was recorded as “dementia decline baseline”.
Based on the daughter’s information to the court, a medical practitioner suspected that her father was developing dementia, despite his not attending a follow-up appointment.
However, the father’s lawyer rebutted and denied that the father was diagnosed with dementia. In support of this denial, he relied on the report of a specialist psychiatrist, who assessed the pensioner in April last year.
The assessment showed that there was “no history of mental illness”.
“The doctor’s assessment further confirms that the applicant’s (father’s) cognition is intact, with no clinical signs of Alzheimer’s disease.”
This demonstrated that he remained capable of managing his own affairs.
According to the daughter, who was unwilling to mediate in terms of Rule 41A(2)(b), she submitted other unrelated disputes between the parties, such as her sexual preference for a same-sex relationship and the return of her sibling to the property.
The court found that those were peripheral matters that bore no relevance to the litigation.
Acting Judge Yake said: “What the (daughter) appears to dispute is her obligation to pay the purchase price. According to her, she was not required to make any payment, contending instead that the amount stipulated in the sale agreement was in lieu of her undertaking to care for (her father). This contention stands in direct contrast to the correspondence of her attorney (who)… explicitly recorded that the father intended to sell the property to the daughter, subject to the reservation of a life usufruct in favour of the father.”
Acting Judge Yake further said it was unfortunate that this dispute arose within the context of family relations, as courts have consistently emphasised that such conflicts are best resolved outside of litigation, so as to avoid further strain upon familial bonds.
“The daughter seeks to present to this court that her reluctance to transfer the property back to her father is motivated by concern for his protection and safety. Regrettable, notwithstanding her professed concern for her father’s welfare, she has nonetheless drawn him into litigation, fully aware of his advanced age.
“Her stance amounts to an attempt to retain property that does not lawfully belong to her, cloaked in the rhetoric of care and concern. The Older Persons Act was enacted precisely to guard against circumstances such as these… The Act seeks to establish robust mechanisms to protect vulnerable older individuals from property dispossession, familial pressure, and financial abuse,” the acting judge said.
Chevon Booysen
iol.co.za