PFA: Spouse fails to prove she was financially dependent on estranged husband

Muvhango Lukhaimane

The Pension Funds Adjudicator has dismissed a complaint by the estranged spouse of a deceased to claim a larger amount than the 1,43% that she was allocated of a total benefit of more than R1,7 million.

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 were, however, separated for six years. In the divorce summons it was stated that the deceased failed to care for the complainant’s financial needs. 

The deceased was a member of the fund until he passed away on 4 May 2022 when  a lumpsum death benefit of R1 743 909.90 became available for allocation to his beneficiaries. 

The fund decided to allocate the benefit as follows: the spouse 1,43%; 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. She submitted that she and the deceased were married on 28 November 2007. She said the deceased did not want her to work and supported her financially. Further, she took care of the deceased when he was sick.   

The complainant submitted that she was fully financially dependent on the deceased. She wanted to be allocated a greater portion of the death benefit. 

The fund submitted that the deceased was registered as is member from January 2007 until he passed away on 04 May 2022. It submitted that the deceased and the complainant were married on 28 November 2007. However, they had been separated for six years prior to his death. The fund submitted that at the date of his death, the deceased resided with his older daughter. 

The fund submitted that on 27 February 2023, the complainant telephonically 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. On 18 January 2024, the complainant telephonically confirmed that she received ad hoc payments from the deceased for miscellaneous items between R500 and R1 000. 

The deceased’s older daughter claimed the death benefit. She was unemployed and was dependent on the deceased for 50% of the rent and groceries. The deceased’s younger daughter also claimed the death benefit. She was unemployed, lived on a child social grant, and was dependent on the deceased for rent, food, and her children’s school supplies. The deceased’s son, Tyrrell, claimed the death benefit. He was employed but the deceased assisted him with money for a home loan. Another son of the deceased waived his death benefit claim and confirmed that he was not dependent on the deceased. 

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. 

The fund indicated that the deceased completed beneficiary nomination forms dated 31 January 2007 and 8 September 2021 wherein he nominated his eldest daughter as the sole beneficiary of his death benefit. 

The fund submitted that the board initially decided to allocate a portion of the death benefit to his girlfriend, pending confirmation of the status of her relationship and the extent of her dependency on the deceased. However, upon further investigation, it was established that the girlfriend and the deceased did not have a life-partnership relationship and that she was not financially dependent on him. 

The fund stated that the complainant was still legally married to the deceased at the time of death. However, she was not entitled to 50% of the death benefit. 

In her determination, Ms Lukhaimane said the complainant and the deceased were married at the date of his death. However, they were separated for six years until the date of death of the deceased. 

She 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. 

Ms Lukhaimane said the deceased updated his beneficiary nomination on 8 September 2021 shortly before his passing in May 2022. 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 Ms Lukhaimane. 

In order to be considered as a factual dependant of the deceased, there should be a need for such maintenance on a regular basis. The divorce summons stated that the deceased failed to care for the complainant’s financial needs. Therefore, it is clear that the deceased did not provide the complainant with regular financial support. 

Ms Lukhaimane said the board considered all the relevant factors and made an equitable allocation of the death benefit. She dismissed the complaint.