Van Rooyen Friedrich & others v Louw Smit NO & others

The deceased, Maartin Rudolf Friedrich, died in September 2006 leaving a will in which his three adult children from a previous marriage were appointed as his sole heirs. He was married to the second respondent, Susanna Maria Friedrich, out of community of property without accrual. After his death, Mrs Friedrich lodged a claim against the estate for maintenance in terms of the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act 27 of 1990. The executor allowed her claim in the amount of approximately R4.46 million and reflected it in the liquidation and distribution account. The appellants objected, contending that Mrs Friedrich was able to maintain herself and that the claim was unjustified and excessive. The Master sustained the objection but referred the issue of quantum to court. Litigation followed in the High Court and then before a Full Court, both of which found that Mrs Friedrich was entitled to reasonable maintenance despite finding that she had led no meaningful evidence to prove need. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld. The order of the Full Court was set aside and replaced with an order sustaining the appellants’ objection to the liquidation and distribution account. The Master’s decision was substituted with an order removing Mrs Friedrich’s maintenance claim in its entirety. Mrs Friedrich’s counterclaim was dismissed, and she was ordered to pay the costs.

The case clarifies the evidentiary burden resting on a surviving spouse claiming maintenance under the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act. It affirms that entitlement to maintenance is not automatic upon death of a spouse and that courts must strictly apply the statutory requirements. The judgment also reinforces the scope of judicial powers under section 35(10) of the Administration of Estates Act to reconsider matters afresh.