Lover's loan argument rejected by judge
The Gauteng High Court (Johannesburg) on Friday ruled that a man should not get the R610 000 back after he gave it to his girlfriend in an attempt to hide the money from his wife, who he was considering divorcing.
The husband, named as HW, was having an affair with the woman, named as RS, for two years when he withdrew the money in 2017, according to a report in The Citizen.
He withdrew R850 000 in three transactions to prevent his wife from accessing the money if he followed through with the divorce proceedings.
They were married in community of property.
However, when the relationship with RS ended, HW claimed the money given to her was a loan and asked for it to be paid back.
In court, RS said the money was given to her to help her wind up her struggling business. She also said the money was given to her as a show of faith that HW would leave his wife.
Though HW said he intended to leave his wife at the time, he claimed he had not made up his mind on whether he should pursue a long-term relationship with RS yet.
Judge Stuart David James Wilson said the husband had not kept any paperwork to prove the money was given as a loan.
‘There are no contemporaneous letters or emails that refer to the existence of a loan. There were no witnesses to the transaction,’ said Wilson.
The judge also had ‘serious doubts’ about HW’s credibility and reliability, notes The Citizen.
‘Underpinning his entire case was an act of dishonesty: a scheme to spirit money away from his wife. I was not convinced that this was all there was to it,’ he said.
‘All he needed to do to achieve that result was move the money to a secret account, or into an undisclosed investment. That would have been no less dishonest than what he actually did. What he actually did, though, implied a motive beyond merely depriving his wife of the money. He gave it to RS, who, if nothing had been said, would plainly have formed the reasonable impression that it was meant to free her from her business so that they could start a new life together after HW’s divorce.’
The money was also deposited into RS’ business account, rather than her personal bank account, the judge noted in dismissing HW’s case.
Article disclaimer: While we have made every effort to ensure the accuracy of this article, it is not intended to provide final legal advice as facts and situations will differ from case to case, and therefore specific legal advice should be sought with a lawyer.