The Pension Funds Adjudicator has dismissed a complaint by the estranged spouse of a deceased to claim a larger amount than the 1.43% she was allocated of a total benefit of more than R1.7 million.
The Pension Funds Adjudicator has dismissed a complaint by the estranged spouse of a deceased to claim a larger amount than the 1.43% she was allocated of a total benefit of more than R1.7 million.
Pension Funds 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.
The complainant was married to the fund member at the date of his death, but they were, however, separated for six years, she said.
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%, and the deceased’s children to share 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 the man were married in November 2007 and he did not want her to work and supported her financially.
Further, she took care of the now-deceased when he was sick.
The fund submitted that the man and the complainant had been separated for six years prior to his death, and at the date of his death, he resided with his older daughter.
The fund 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, however, it had not been finalised. The divorce summons stated that the deceased failed to care for her financial needs. Later the complainant confirmed that she 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 is that such assets do not form part of the deceased’s estate and are required to be distributed per a statutory scheme which gives preference to need and dependency above the member’s choice.
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 as his legal dependants as he also assisted them financially.
“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 benefit.
“Even if the deceased gave the complainant financial support on an ad-hoc basis, this does not entitle the complainant to acquire a right to be maintained by the deceased.”
The Mercury
Related Topics: