Tutorial Letter No 1

TUTORIAL LETTER NO 1. I was disappointed with the accounts drawn up in answer to the 3 rd section of the first assignment. Few if any candidates deserved the marks awarded. In fact if this type of account were lodged with the Master you would be awarded with a query sheet of several pages. I wish to highlight certain of the errors made. Most had the heading more or less correct, but in most cases the fact that the survivor had adiated was not mentioned. Many slipped up with the liquidation section. The parties were married out of community of property so the assets and liabilities of the survivor MUST be shown separately from the assets and liabilities of the deceased. This in most cases caused the Master's fees and executors commission to be incorrect. I did not award points where the assets were combined and commission taken on the total. As far as the assets and liabilities were concerned, proper descriptions of the assets and the names of the creditors must be stated. Many overlooked the fact that farm property cannot be transferred to more than one person. Voucher numbers and proper divestment notes were omitted in many cases. Few had problems with the recapitulation statement. Although I did not check if the amounts quoted were in fact in accordance with the account as drawn The distribution account caused the biggest problem for most candidates. As the award was in equal shares, jus accrescendi is not applicable and one third had to be awarded to the intestate heirs. Most if not all overlooked the fact that this portion was also subject to the usufruct of the survivor. NB section 24 of the General Law Amendment Act as applicable in South Africa is NOT applicable in Namibia therefore the share of a predeceased child is not awarded to his children The awards should have been 1/3 plus 1/12 each to Jenny and Mary and a 1/12 share to the survivor and Timothy. Those candidates that opted for a redistribution agreement to avoid the sale of the assets should remember that such an agreement forms part of the account and must be properly drawn up and "signed" by all necessary persons. An agreement where the heirs do not receive the same value as they would have received under the will can and will cause problems in the examinations. As mentioned in the class, do not give in your answers that which is not asked. This will just waste time and you will not get any extra credit therefor. I did not ask for a redistribution agreement (although this was a possible mode of divestment in this exercise) and no extra marks was given for those who decided on this method, in fact in some cases marks were lost where no proper agreement or an unacceptable agreement was included.

In the same way, I did not ask for an income account as nothing was said in the question about income after death. Those who drew up detailed income account received no more marks than those who stated (as I only wanted) that no income was collected. Only 1(one) mark was given for the income account. In fact I could have even withheld this mark if the income account did not comply with the regulations or was incorrectly drawn up. No one had trouble with the certificate although if the account was not signed, marks were lost. The question was to draw up an account that complied with the regulations. Where the regulations were quoted with long explanations of how the various amounts were calculated this was not favourably accepted. Please bear the above in mind when answering the questions in the exams. You will not have time to give explanations or to answer that which is not asked. Read the questions carefully and just give what is required. Best of luck with the mid-term examinations in August T.TAYLOR.