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.