whether Mrs Q will be entitled to claim the property as stipulated in the ante-nuptial agreement. The parties had been married and divorced twice before. Both of these divorces were the
result of Mr Q having extramarital affairs. Mr and Mrs Q were married again (i.e. for the third
time) in 2000 and divorced in 2010. The antenuptial contract entered into before the final
marriage in 2000 provided that if Mr Q was the cause of a divorce due to an extramarital affair,
he would have to provide Mrs Q with a fixed property to the value of R 200 000 (with an
escalation value of 12% per annum from the date of the marriage) within three months after
the divorce. During the third marriage, Mr Q indeed had an extramarital affair with Mrs Y.
During the divorce proceedings in 2010, Mrs Q attempted to rely on the clause of the
antenuptial contract and claimed the property to which she believed she was entitled. Mr Q
argued that the clause was not enforceable. He argued that the clause was contra bonos
mores because it encouraged the dissolution of the marriage.
The issue at hand is whether the clause in the antenuptial agreement, which provides for the payment of a fixed property to Mrs Q in the event of divorce due to Mr Q's extramarital affair, is enforceable.
Mr Q argues that the clause is contra bonos mores, which means that it goes against public policy because it encourages the dissolution of the marriage. However, this argument is unlikely to succeed as the clause is a private agreement between two individuals and does not have any impact on the public policy of the state.
In addition, the court has previously held that antenuptial agreements that provide for the payment of maintenance or a lump sum payment in the event of divorce due to infidelity are enforceable, as long as they are not against public policy. Therefore, the court is likely to uphold the clause in this case.
Assuming the clause is enforceable, Mrs Q is entitled to claim the fixed property to the value of R 200 000 (with an escalation value of 12% per annum from the date of the marriage) within three months after the divorce. It should be noted that the property must be of equal value to the specified amount at the time of payment, taking the escalation value into account.
Overall, it seems that Mrs Q has a strong argument for claiming the property as stipulated in the antenuptial agreement. However, the final decision will depend on the specific wording of the clause and any other relevant factors that may be considered by the court.
To determine whether Mrs Q will be entitled to claim the property as stipulated in the ante-nuptial agreement, we need to consider the details of the agreement and the arguments presented by Mr Q.
According to the ante-nuptial contract entered into before their final marriage in 2000, it was stipulated that if Mr Q caused a divorce due to an extramarital affair, he would be obligated to provide Mrs Q with a fixed property worth R 200,000 within three months after the divorce. This fixed property would have an escalation value of 12% per annum from the date of the marriage.
During their third marriage, it is mentioned that Mr Q had an extramarital affair with Mrs Y. In 2010, when they got divorced, Mrs Q attempted to claim the property as per the clause in the ante-nuptial contract.
However, Mr Q argued that the clause was not enforceable because it was contra bonos mores, meaning it went against public policy by encouraging the dissolution of the marriage.
To determine the validity of Mr Q's argument, we need to consider the laws and legal principles of the jurisdiction in which the divorce took place. Without specific information on the jurisdiction, it is challenging to provide a definitive answer. In general, ante-nuptial agreements are enforceable as long as they do not violate public policy or any specific laws of the jurisdiction.
If the jurisdiction in question allows for the enforcement of ante-nuptial agreements, the clause that stipulates Mr Q's obligation to provide Mrs Q with the fixed property could potentially be enforceable unless it is determined to be against public policy. Mrs Q's argument would be that the clause is a valid provision agreed upon by both parties before the marriage, and it should be upheld as per their agreement.
If the jurisdiction deems the clause to be against public policy, it may not be enforced, and Mrs Q's claim to the property would be affected. In such a scenario, she may need to explore alternative legal arguments or remedies to seek compensation or other forms of relief.
To obtain a definitive answer regarding the enforceability of the clause in the ante-nuptial agreement and Mrs Q's entitlement to the property, consulting with a qualified legal professional familiar with the specific jurisdiction's laws is recommended.