TYING THE KNOT TIGHT TILL THE BROKEN DISHWASHER US DO PART

Groom-to-be shocked by contract, but lawyers describe such ’lifestyle clauses’ as ’nonsense’

TO love, honour, wash the dishes, have sex an agreed number of times — and pay penalties for infidelity.

These are some of the “lifestyle clauses” that have made their way into South African antenuptial contracts.

But divorce lawyers say these “nonsense” clauses are not legally binding as antenuptial contracts come into effect only at the end of a marriage, either with divorce or death.

In the most recent case, as South Africa began marking Marriage Week from Thursday, Durban accountant Navin Badri was asked by his client, the groom-to-be, to read his marriage contract and explain the financial aspects.

He was surprised by this clause: “Should the washing machine or dishwasher break or stop working: both parties consent to do the dishes and wash the clothes.”

So he followed up with the attorney, who told him that many divorce matters start befidelity, cause spouses enter into marriage without any knowledge of how to do household chores. Or, if they can, they are unwilling.

In the US, lifestyle clauses include the number of times inlaws may visit, if the children are raised vegetarian, a “nodiaper clause” that specifies no children, or “fling fees” for in- an agreement which actress Catherine Zeta-Jones is believed to have with husband Michael Douglas.

Cape Town lawyer Bertus Preller had a client who specified in the antenuptial contract that she would get custody of the pets in the divorce.

“A colleague once told me that he had a client who insisted on a clause stating how often a couple would have sex.

“There was one contract with an infidelity clause that stipulated that the wife would have no claim against the accrual in case of her infidelity, but the same waiver did not apply in respect of the husband, which rendered the contract to be against public policy,” he said.

Preller said the terms and conditions of the contract should not be illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy.

A client insisted on a clause stating how often a couple would have sex

In a recent case, the High Court in Cape Town found that a marriage contract contained provisions “which are difficult to imagine any right-thinking woman would have agreed to have incorporated in an ANC [antenuptial contract]”.

Preller said: “In this case, the husband forced the wife to sign a contract which stated that the wife waives any present or future right to claim maintenance for herself.”

Durban attorney Retha Meiring said attorneys should advise their clients that the courts would not uphold bizarre clauses. “Washing of the dishes will have no legal effect or consequence.”

Meiring has had many clients who almost broke up before marriage because the terms and conditions of the contract, particularly pertaining to exclusion of assets, became so contested.

Norton Rose Fulbright candidate attorney Jade Aspeling said that not washing dishes did not provide valid grounds for divorce.

Irretrievable breakdown of a marriage or continuous unconsciousness or mental illness were the only grounds for divorce in South Africa.

“If they wanted to get a divorce, you couldn’t say the dishwasher broke and you didn’t do it. You couldn’t use a breach of the unusual clause to justify a divorce or a breakdown in marriage,” she said.