A change made by the Rules Board, provides in 46 A of the Uniform Rules of Court, that a court may set a reserve price for properties to be sold in execution of a debt judgement. This, so it is said, should be used by litigants acting on behalf of the trustees of home owners associations: it is said that by a court setting a reserve price, a bondholder bank is precluded from blocking a sale on account of holding a bond over the property, as the bank will now have to accept the set price. I confess not to be convinced that this will necessarily be that effective. The following case illustrates the problem; in this a body corporate attempted to sequestrate a non-paying member. Take a look.
Be careful of what you post on HelloPeter & social media.
In the case below, a claimant of salary was able to wind up a non-paying company. This is unusual as our courts don’t generally favour liquidation as a method of debt collection.
An interesting recent local case deals with the duties of a trustee who was appointed to liquidate and divide the estate of parties married in community of property on their divorce. The judge states that it is the responsibility of such a trustee to make a contribution towards the costs of a matrimonial suit by the parties as they would be prejudiced if this were not done.. What sets this case aside is the conduct of the attorney appointed in this particular matter, which led to the judge awarding costs de bonis propriis against her. The case is not yet available on SAFLII but I will make it available to you should you ask me for acopy
LA v EA
