The Importance of Fulfilling Maintenance Orders through Pension Benefits
The duty to maintain is an obligation that originates from the common law, that a parent has to support and provide for the needs of a minor child until the minor becomes a major and is financially self-supporting. This duty on a parent is legally enforceable and applies to natural parents, adoptive parents, and in certain circumstances to the grandparents and relatives of the child.
Section 15 (3) of the Maintenance Act 99 of 1998 (“Maintenance Act”) states that “Without derogating from the law relating to the liability of persons to support children who are unable to support themselves, a maintenance order for the maintenance of a child is directed at the enforcement of the common law duty of the child’s parents to support that child, as the duty in question exists at the time of the issue of the maintenance order and is expected to continue”.
The Maintenance Act provides for the enforcement of orders to avoid empty judgments. Section 26 states that an order for maintenance shall be enforceable against a person who has been ordered by a court to pay maintenance and has failed to do so. Enforcement of the order may be executed in one of the following ways: by execution against that person’s property, through emoluments attachment order, or by attachment of a debt. It is important to note that one can only look at a party’s pension benefit to satisfy a maintenance order once an order or judgment has been granted by the court and the party ordered to pay maintenance has defaulted.
The primary objective of pension funds is to preserve benefits for retirement. As such, there are limited permissible deductions for these benefits. Section 37A of the Pension Fund Act 24 of 1956 (Pension Fund Act) provides that a members pension benefit cannot, among other things, be applied to satisfy a judgment debt, and if the pension benefit is applied to satisfy a judgment debt, it must be to the maximum amount of R3 000,00 except if the amount is due in terms of the Pension Fund Act, the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962, and the Maintenance Act. Section 37D (iA) states that a fund may make deductions from an employee’s benefit in terms of a maintenance order. The Maintenance Act and the Pension Fund Act collaborate to give effect to section 26 to avoid empty judgments by permitting attachments of a defaulting party’s property.
In the matter of VDB v VDB and Others (22/11181) [2022] ZAGPJHC 271 (20 April 2022), the parties entered into a settlement agreement that provided that the applicant would pay maintenance of a certain amount per month per child plus medical aid and educational expenses. The settlement agreement was made an order of the court. The applicant defaulted and the respondent proceeded with an ex parte application to execute the maintenance order against the applicant’s Discovery Limited Retirement Annuity for the arrear maintenance, medical care, and educational expenses. The applicant brought an application to the court requesting an order that the respondent must furnish the applicant with 10 days’ notice should the respondent proceed with a warrant of execution against the applicant’s property in satisfaction of the order for maintenance, medical care and educational expenses due to the respondent. The respondent had previously executed against the applicant’s retirement annuity held by Discovery Limited for approximately R700 000,00.
The applicant wanted to be notified and be allowed to oppose further attempts by the respondent to execute against his property, being a pension fund benefit held by Stanlib. The court dismissed the application and held that the Maintenance Act contained available mechanisms to ensure those execution creditors in the position of the applicant are provided with remedies to safeguard their rights before and after a warrant is executed. The Maintenance Act and the Pension Fund Act assist persons who are entitled to maintenance and support to obtain these from a defaulting party’s pension benefits.
