A mother who was aggrieved after her late daughter’s boyfriend was allocated a huge portion in her death benefit approached the Pension Fund Adjudicator (PFA) to challenge the decision.

Her daughter died in August 2021 and NMG Umbrella SmartFund was tasked with distributing her over R2.4 million pension fund to her beneficiaries.

The allocation was as follows: the mother received 15%, the two children received 25% and 30% respectively, and the father received 30%.

Dissatisfied with the allocation, she appealed at the PFA, arguing that the fund did not adequately consider her significant financial reliance on her daughter, especially given her age of 57 at the time of her daughter’s passing.

She explained that her daughter supported her financially after asking her to leave her domestic job and move to the Eastern Cape to help with the children and was paying her R4,000. Her daughter eventually bought her a house in Gauteng, and she moved back following her passing.

Moreover, she submitted that her daughter’s boyfriend misled the fund by saying he paid a portion of lobola negotiations in December 2015. She said there was no lobola paid and they were never in terms of customary law. This was confirmed through an affidavit by her relative.

She said that the boyfriend is an engineer at Transnet and was never financially dependent on her daughter. Meanwhile, she had no income and financially relied on her daughter.

She contended that 15% was insufficient for her lifelong maintenance and she was entitled to 30%. She further proposed that a portion of the funds be allocated to the children, with the father receiving only five percent.

In response, the boyfriend insisted that he paid R15,000 lobola after his family was charged R93,000. He said both his children used his surname, and this wouldn’t have been allowed if he was just a boyfriend.

He said he had plans to complete the lobola, but there were other expenses to handle after his family had grown. In February 2021, he discussed with the deceased’s mother how he would settle the outstanding lobola balance, but the girlfriend died in August 2021.

According to him, their nanny went back to Zimbabwe and the deceased asked her mother to assist with the children temporarily. Her mother, in turn, declined any compensation for her time living with them.

After the death of his girlfriend, he wished to continue living with the children and their grandmother as he was still grieving. However, the mother refused, opting to return to Gauteng with the children. Despite him consistently providing monthly financial support and purchasing clothes, he was denied contact and eventually had to pursue legal action to gain access to his children.

During this period, the grandmother also initiated proceedings against him at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation, and Arbitration (CCMA), asserting that she was his employee and demanding compensation.

Meanwhile, the fund said they managed to confirm that the deceased was paying the bond where her mother lives. However, following her death, proceeds from a life policy settled most of the outstanding bond leaving a balance of R7,202.

It was also submitted that she also received R1,380 child grant for her other grandchildren. Additionally, she has another child who should assist her financially.

The fund acknowledged that the deceased and the boyfriend were not married but recognised that they were in a permanent life partnership. They were co-dependent on each other as they lived in the same household, shared household expenses, and obtained a joint bond and joint life cover. In addition, the boyfriend maintained the deceased as a member on his medical aid since 2016.

The fund submitted that the board’s decision was intended to achieve equitable results considering all relevant factors and it allocated the death benefit according to their needs and circumstances.

Reviewing the evidence, the adjudicator Muvhango Lukhaimane, said the fund failed to highlight the extent of the boyfriend’s financial dependency on the deceased and how the deceased’s death left him financially worse off.

He was allocated 30% of the death benefit, but the fund did not explain how it was calculated based on his financial circumstances.

Lukhaimane said fund also considered the mother’s other children as potential financial contributors. However, it overlooked the fact that the specific child it referenced was unemployed.

“Therefore, the fund was not rational in making its decision and failed to consider all the relevant factors when allocating the benefits to the deceased’s beneficiaries. The fund must investigate the financial circumstances of the beneficiaries and the extent to which each beneficiary was dependent on the deceased,” she said.

Lukhaimane overturned the decision, directing the fund to investigate the financial situations of the identified beneficiaries and any other factors the board deems relevant.

Source link