087 822 1639
Skip to content 087 822 1639
A liquidity problem in high-net-worth divorce in South Africa arises when a spouse or matrimonial estate has substantial wealth on paper but insufficient cash to satisfy a divorce settlement, accrual claim, maintenance obligation or other financial consequence without selling, refinancing or disrupting valuable assets.
This is common where wealth is concentrated in private companies, property, trusts, investment structures, shareholder loans or other assets that cannot easily be converted into cash.
In a high-net-worth divorce, net worth and liquidity are not the same thing. A business owner may have an estate worth tens of millions of rand while most of that value is tied up in a company. A spouse may hold valuable property but face debt, tax or transfer costs.
A shareholder loan may be worth millions yet not be immediately repayable. The practical question is therefore not only what each spouse is legally entitled to receive, but how that entitlement can be implemented without unnecessarily destroying value.
Liquidity should be considered early. A settlement that looks equal on a balance sheet can become commercially unworkable if one spouse must raise a large cash amount at short notice, sell assets under pressure or extract funds from a business that needs working capital to survive.
| Question | General position |
Does high net worth mean cash is available? | No. A substantial estate may be highly illiquid. |
Can a valuable business be unable to fund a settlement? | Yes. Company value and cash available to a shareholder are different questions. |
Can an accrual claim be paid over time? | Potentially. Section 10 of the Matrimonial Property Act allows a court, on application by the person against whom the claim lies, to defer satisfaction on conditions it considers just. |
Can a shareholder loan be valuable but illiquid? | Yes. Recoverability, repayment terms, subordination and company liquidity all matter. |
Should tax be considered when comparing assets? | Yes. Market value and after-tax economic value may differ materially. |
Can a settlement bind a bank or other third party? | Not merely because the spouses agree between themselves. Existing finance, security and third-party rights must be considered. |
Liquidity refers to the practical ability to convert an asset into cash, or otherwise use it to satisfy a financial obligation, within the required time and without an unacceptable loss of value.
Cash in a bank account is highly liquid. A minority interest in a private company, a commercial property, a family business or a subordinated shareholder loan may be valuable but difficult to realise quickly.
This distinction matters because divorce creates legal entitlements that may need to be translated into actual payments, transfers or other enforceable settlement mechanisms.
A high net worth does not establish that a spouse has the cash required to make a large immediate payment.
Consider an estate consisting mainly of a private company worth R30 million, commercial property worth R12 million and retirement interests worth R8 million.
The headline net worth may appear substantial. Yet the spouse may have very little cash personally available if the company retains its earnings, the property is bonded and the retirement interests cannot simply be converted into cash on demand.
A settlement that assumes that substantial net worth equals substantial liquidity can therefore create avoidable financial pressure or force the sale of assets in circumstances where a more structured solution may preserve greater value for both parties.
Liquidity is an implementation issue. It does not determine the underlying matrimonial entitlement.
The first step remains to establish the applicable matrimonial property regime and the legal rights arising from it.
Where the parties are married in community of property, the division of the joint estate is legally different from an accrual claim arising in a marriage out of community of property with accrual.
Where spouses are married out of community of property excluding accrual, different proprietary consequences apply, subject to any legally available redistribution remedy.
Only once the legal entitlement has been identified should the parties decide how that entitlement can realistically be satisfied.
Under section 3 of the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984, an accrual claim arises on dissolution of a marriage subject to the accrual system.
A substantial claim can create an immediate liquidity problem where most of the debtor spouse’s wealth is tied up in illiquid assets.
Section 10 provides an important mechanism. On application by the person against whom the accrual claim lies, a court may order that satisfaction of the claim be deferred on conditions it considers just.
The section expressly contemplates conditions relating to security, interest, instalments and the delivery or transfer of specified assets.
Section 10 does not reduce the claim merely because payment is difficult. It addresses the timing and manner in which the claim is satisfied.
This distinction is important. The legal entitlement and the payment mechanism should not be conflated.
Private-company wealth is one of the most common sources of liquidity difficulty in a complex divorce.
A business may be highly valuable because of its earnings, intellectual property, customer base, assets or future cash flows, but that does not mean the shareholder can immediately withdraw an equivalent amount of cash.
The company is a separate juristic person. Company money is not automatically the personal money of the shareholder.
A proposed settlement should therefore distinguish between:
See Divorce and Business Ownership in South Africa for a fuller treatment of business interests in divorce.
A forced or hurried sale of a valuable private business can destroy the very value the divorce is intended to divide.
A business may depend heavily on the continued involvement of the operating spouse. A rushed disposal may also occur at a discount, disturb employees or customers, trigger finance provisions or create tax consequences.
That does not mean a business can never be sold. It means liquidation should not be treated as the automatic answer to a liquidity problem.
The parties should first determine whether the entitlement can be implemented through another combination of assets, deferred payments, security, refinancing or an orderly realisation strategy.
Shareholder loans are particularly important because they can appear liquid on paper while being difficult to recover in practice.
If a company owes a spouse R8 million, the loan may represent a valuable personal claim. But the accounting balance does not necessarily mean the company can repay R8 million immediately.
The analysis may need to consider repayment terms, subordination, security, lender restrictions, the company’s working-capital requirements and the practical consequences of repayment.
The shareholder loan should also be reconciled with the business valuation to avoid double counting.
For a fuller discussion, see MVA’s article on Shareholder Loans in High-Net-Worth Divorce.
A minority interest in a private company may have substantial economic value while being difficult to sell independently.
Transfer restrictions, pre-emption rights, the absence of a ready market and limited control can all affect practical realisability. The legal and valuation questions are distinct: a shareholding can be valuable even though it is not readily convertible into cash.
A settlement should therefore avoid assuming that a minority shareholding can simply be sold at its headline valuation within a short period.
Property portfolios can create a similar problem.
A spouse may own valuable residential, commercial or investment property while carrying substantial mortgage debt and having limited free cash flow.
The gross market value of the property is not the amount available to fund a settlement. Relevant deductions and constraints may include secured debt, selling costs, tax consequences where applicable, transfer mechanics and the time required to realise the property.
Where property must be sold, the settlement should address the practical process clearly, including responsibility for costs, interim payments, cooperation with the sale and what happens if the property does not achieve the anticipated price.
Trust assets should not automatically be treated as assets personally available to a spouse to satisfy a divorce obligation.
A trust is legally distinct. Whether a spouse has rights relating to a trust, and whether the trust structure is relevant to a matrimonial claim, requires separate legal analysis.
Even where a trust is financially significant to the family, a settlement should not assume that trustees can simply release trust assets or cash on demand.
Listed investments may appear more liquid than businesses or property, but a substantial portfolio can still create settlement risks.
Selling a large portfolio may crystallise tax, alter an investment strategy, trigger market risk or require assets to be realised at an unfavourable time.
The parties should therefore consider both current market value and the consequences of the transaction required to turn that value into cash.
Market value and economic value after tax are not always the same.
An asset with substantial latent capital gains tax exposure may provide less economic value on eventual disposal than an equivalent amount of cash.
A business or property transaction may also create other tax consequences depending on the legal structure and the transaction used to implement the settlement.
Tax should therefore be considered before the settlement is finalised, particularly where a proposed solution depends on selling, transferring or restructuring valuable assets.
A valuation tells the parties what an asset or interest may be worth under the applicable valuation basis. It does not necessarily establish how the value can be realised or when cash will become available.
This is particularly important with private companies. A business may have a high equity value but weak cash flow. A minority shareholding may be worth millions but have no obvious buyer. A shareholder loan may be legally due but subordinated.
The valuation exercise and the liquidity analysis should therefore inform one another without being treated as the same exercise.
Where a legal entitlement cannot sensibly be satisfied through one immediate cash payment, the settlement may need a more structured implementation mechanism.
Depending on the circumstances and legal position, possibilities may include:
The appropriate mechanism depends on the legal claim, the assets available, third-party rights and the commercial circumstances.
Where payment is deferred, the receiving spouse should consider the risk that the debtor spouse may later be unable or unwilling to pay.
Security may therefore be an important part of the settlement or any section 10 arrangement.
The type of security must be appropriate to the facts. It may involve identified property, financial instruments, guarantees or other lawful mechanisms, but the enforceability and priority of the proposed security should be checked carefully.
Security should not be drafted in abstract terms that prove difficult to enforce when payment becomes due.
A divorce settlement is an agreement between the parties and, once made an order of court, may regulate obligations between them.
It does not automatically alter the contractual rights of a bank, lender, company, trust or other third party that is not bound by the arrangement.
For example, spouses cannot simply agree between themselves that a bank must release one spouse from a mortgage bond or extend new finance.
Where implementation depends on refinancing, substitution of debtors, transfer of security or third-party consent, those requirements should be investigated before the settlement is signed.
A liquidity problem does not automatically justify appointing numerous experts.
Expert input should answer a defined question that is material to the settlement or litigation.
Depending on the matter, appropriate assistance may come from a business valuer, forensic accountant, tax adviser, actuary, corporate adviser or other specialist.
The legal team should coordinate the mandates so that valuation, tax and liquidity work does not duplicate itself or answer different versions of the same question.
Before finalising a high-value settlement, the parties should distinguish between value and cash availability.
Identify the material assets, debts, ownership structures and legal interests relevant to the matrimonial claim.
Establish what each spouse is legally entitled to receive before designing the payment mechanism.
Separate cash and readily realisable assets from assets that require time, consent, financing or a sale process.
Consider debt, tax, transfer restrictions, finance terms and the effect of extracting value from a business or trust structure.
A settlement should be tested against realistic cash flow rather than assumed liquidity.
If payments are deferred, specify the security, interest where appropriate, due dates and consequences of default clearly.
Assume a spouse owns a valuable private company and, after the accrual calculation is completed, faces a substantial accrual claim.
Most of the spouse’s wealth is represented by the business. The company is profitable but needs significant working capital and cannot simply distribute a large lump sum without affecting operations.
The claim itself does not disappear because the wealth is illiquid. The parties must instead consider how the claim can be satisfied.
Depending on the circumstances, this may involve liquid assets, instalments, security, specified asset transfers or an application under section 10 for deferment on just conditions.
Assume the estate includes several investment properties with substantial gross value but also significant mortgage debt.
The spouse appears wealthy on a property schedule, yet most monthly rental income is absorbed by finance and operating costs.
A settlement requiring a major cash payment within thirty days may force distressed sales. A better-informed settlement would first establish net equity, realistic sale periods, tax implications and alternative sources of payment.
Assume a company owes a spouse R10 million on shareholder loan account.
The loan is legally significant, but the company has only R2 million in free cash and the loan is subordinated to bank finance.
Treating the R10 million as immediately available cash would be misleading. The settlement should distinguish the value of the claim from the timetable on which it can realistically be recovered.
In a high-net-worth divorce, liquidity should be analysed as part of the wider matrimonial, valuation and settlement strategy.
At Martin Vermaak Attorneys, the approach may include establishing the matrimonial property regime, mapping the material assets and liabilities, identifying which assets are genuinely liquid, reconciling business interests and shareholder loans, considering tax and finance constraints, and designing a settlement or litigation strategy that can be implemented in practice.
Where specialist input is needed, the expert mandate should be defined around the actual legal and financial problem.
The objective is not simply to produce a headline net-worth figure. It is to establish the legal entitlement accurately and then determine how that entitlement can be satisfied without unnecessarily destroying the value available to both parties.
It arises when substantial wealth exists but insufficient cash is readily available to satisfy the financial consequences of the divorce without selling, refinancing or restructuring assets.
No. Net worth measures value, not necessarily cash availability. A spouse may be wealthy but highly illiquid.
Potentially. Section 10 of the Matrimonial Property Act allows the court, on application by the person against whom the accrual claim lies, to defer satisfaction of the claim on conditions it considers just, including security, interest, instalments and transfer of specified assets.
Company cash is not automatically the shareholder’s personal money. Any lawful extraction or repayment must be considered within the company’s legal, financial, contractual and tax position.
No. A shareholder loan may be a valuable claim, but its practical recoverability depends on the loan terms, company liquidity, subordination, security and other constraints.
Not merely because the spouses agree. The bank’s contractual rights remain relevant and its consent may be required.
Yes, where material. Assets with the same market value can have different after-tax economic values.
No. Illiquidity affects realisability and potentially valuation or settlement structure, but it does not mean the asset is worthless.
A liquidity problem in a high-net-worth divorce in South Africa is ultimately an implementation problem: substantial wealth may exist without sufficient cash being immediately available to satisfy the legal entitlement arising on divorce.
Private companies, shareholder loans, minority interests, property portfolios, trusts and investments can all create a gap between headline net worth and usable liquidity. That gap should be identified before the settlement is signed.
The strongest settlement strategy separates three questions: what the parties legally own, what those interests are worth, and how the resulting entitlement can realistically be paid or transferred.
Where necessary, deferred payment, security, instalments, asset transfers or other properly structured mechanisms may preserve value more effectively than a forced sale.
Author: Martin Vermaak, B.Proc, LLB
Attorney of the High Court of South Africa | Director, Martin Vermaak Attorneys | Over 20 years’ experience in divorce and family law
Disclaimer
This information has been prepared for general educational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal, financial, tax or other professional advice. South African family law is fact-specific, and the applicable legal position may depend on the circumstances of the individual matter. Readers should obtain independent professional advice appropriate to their circumstances before making legal, financial or other decisions.
Copyright © 2026 Martin Vermaak Attorneys. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use Privacy Policy
BannerText_Seraphinite Accelerator