The Pension Funds Adjudicator has dismissed a bid by the estranged spouse of a deceased man to claim a larger amount than the 1.43% that she was allocated of a total benefit of more than R1.7 million.
The adjudicator, Muvhango Lukhaimane, said she was satisfied that the board of the Metal Industries Provident Fund had considered all the relevant factors and had made an equitable allocation of the death benefit.
She said while the complainant was married to the fund member at the date of his death, they had been separated for six years.
The deceased was a member of the fund until his death on May 4, when a lump sum death benefit of R1 743 909 became available for allocation to his beneficiaries.
The fund decided to allocate the spouse 1.43% of the benefit, the older daughter 42,14%, a son 25%, the younger daughter 30%, with the deceased’s children to share the 1.43% which was initially allocated to his girlfriend.
The complainant was not happy with how the benefit was distributed and submitted that she and her husband were married in November 2007.
She said her husband did not want her to work after their marriage in 2007, and had supported her financially. She added that she had taken care of him when he became ill.
The fund submitted that the deceased and the complainant had been separated for six years prior to his death, and at the date of his death, the deceased resided with his older daughter.
The fund further submitted that on February 27, 2023, the complainant confirmed that she and the deceased were separated from 2016 until his passing. She filed for divorce in 2017, which had not yet been finalised.
The divorce summons stated that the deceased failed to care for her financial needs.
Later, the complainant confirmed that she had received ad hoc payments from the deceased for miscellaneous items.
The deceased’s girlfriend confirmed that they had been in a relationship since 2021. However, it was not a long-term relationship and the deceased only visited her whenever he was around. She was not dependent on the deceased but received money from him sporadically for miscellaneous items.
In her determination, Lukhaimane said the complainant qualified as a legal dependant of the deceased.
The guiding principle for payment of the death benefit was that such assets did not form part of the estate and were required to be distributed in terms of a statutory scheme which gives higher preference to need and dependency.
Lukhaimane said the deceased updated his beneficiary nomination in September 2021 shortly before his passing in May 2022, and it was clear that he wanted his eldest daughter to receive his entire death benefit.
However, the fund also considered the deceased’s other children in the allocation of the death benefit as his legal dependants, as he also assisted them financially.
“It is trite law that the extent to which a dependant was dependent on the deceased is a significant factor to consider by the board when allocating the death benefit.
“Dependency is the critical point to consider in the allocation of the death benefit. Even if the deceased provided the complainant with financial support on an ad hoc basis, this does not create an obligation entitling the complainant to acquire a right to be maintained by the deceased,” said Lukhaimane.
Cape Times