{"id":12361,"date":"2026-01-06T10:55:25","date_gmt":"2026-01-06T08:55:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dotnewsconnect.co.za\/law\/?p=12361"},"modified":"2026-01-06T10:55:31","modified_gmt":"2026-01-06T08:55:31","slug":"property-sales-and-side-deals-verbal-agreements-dont-cut-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dotnewsconnect.co.za\/law\/2026\/property-sales-and-side-deals-verbal-agreements-dont-cut-it\/","title":{"rendered":"Property Sales and Side Deals: Verbal Agreements Don\u2019t Cut it!"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

\u201cWith a verbal agreement you have nothing but air.\u201d (Author and entrepreneur Robert Ringer)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

2026 opens with positive signals for our property market after last year\u2019s encouraging GDP forecasts, a credit-rating upgrade, and a series of interest rate cuts boosting access to bond finance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All the signs point to a promising year for buyers, sellers, and homeowners. But a recent Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment is a sharp reminder that getting the legalities wrong, and in particular trying to rely on verbal promises, could mean a very rocky start to your new year. It\u2019s also a reminder that while co-ownership can be a practical way to access and share property, it must be properly structured. When relationships sour, the fallout \u2013 as this case aptly shows \u2013 can be severe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One husband discovered all that the hard way, so let\u2019s learn from his mistakes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cYou can\u2019t evict me, I own half the house!\u201d<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

The central feature of this unhappy tale is unfortunately an all too common one \u2013 a personal relationship gone horribly wrong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A couple married in 2009 and jointly bought a house in 2015. When the husband hit financial trouble in 2017, and creditors threatened to attach his half share, the couple agreed that the wife would buy him out for R1.2 million. A written Deed of Sale was signed, the transfer went through, and she became the registered sole owner. Unsurprisingly, given the purpose of the sale and transfer, she never actually paid him the R1.2 million purchase price.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When the marriage hit the rocks in 2019, she moved out and he stayed on. They divorced but he refused to vacate, arguing that the Deed of Transfer did not reflect their \u201ctrue intention\u201d. This, he claimed, was for him to remain a co-owner \u201cuntil it was less risky\u201d, after which she would give him back his half share.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The dispute landed in the SCA, where the ex-wife insisted that the intention was always that the property would be hers alone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The SCA held that ownership is a question of law, not a factual dispute to be resolved by choosing between different versions of a story. The Court found that the ex-wife remained the sole owner, and its reasons for doing so provide a clear checklist of principles that every buyer, seller, and property owner should keep in mind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What the ex-husband got wrong, and how to get it right<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s discuss the legal principles that sank the ex-husband\u2019s case:<\/p>\n\n\n\n