I HAD to deal with earthly possessions this weekend after watching the trending Marie Kondo series on Netflix.
The idea is to tidy up your home and get rid of possessions for which you no longer have a need.
There were many useless items which landed up in the bin. And it felt good.
It reminded me of the numerous divorces which I have stumbled across over the years in which people argued over possessions. The more possessions, the bigger the fight. No matter how big or small.
The most recent was a divorce last week of a Pretoria east couple, who clearly had expensive hobbies. The childless couple, both in their fifties, clearly begrudgingly set out in their settlement agreement who could get what.
The reason given to the court for divorcing was that they always fought and could not agree on anything.
The man insisted that he remained in possession of several luxury motorbikes, including two Harley Davidsons.
The woman, on the other hand, was clear that she was not going to give up their jet skis, and she was adamant that she wanted the accessories in their bar.
One of the clauses in the agreement, which was made an order of court, was that the man “may remain in possession of his toiletries”.
This was an odd stipulation and seemed somewhat petty to me. But be that as it may, the judge also made this clause an order of court.
Ace Pretoria divorce lawyer Selwyn Shapiro, who has handled many high profile divorces over the years, said he had never heard of toiletries forming part of a settlement. But he said arguing over possessions was often part and parcel of divorce proceedings.
English-speaking people often fought over possessions such as the Weber braai, while there was often a tug-of-war between their Afrikaans counterparts over the Venter trailer.
Movable possessions often form the subject of lengthy settlement agreements and are something many judges have had to deal with over the years.
In one such case, the judge had to decide who would get the washing machine and tumble dryer, as the couple simply could not come to an agreement.
Shapiro said he also recalled a case years ago, which his now deceased father Louis Shapiro, also a well-known divorce lawyer during his time, handled.
The couple simply could not see eye to eye over who would get a blue and white vase.
Shapiro senior asked that the vase be brought to the Palace of Justice, where the divorce hearing was held. The ornament was placed on one of the plush leather chairs in court, where it fell and broke.
Shapiro said that was the end of that. The divorce settlement regarding the remainder of their possessions was quickly signed and sealed.
Then there was the “good housewife” who said she worked her fingers to the bone for her husband before he dumped her.
She told the court that she had to give up her car and her R10000 a month job to become the diligent housewife her now estranged husband wanted. She made it clear she wanted the bulk of the movable property - including all the utensils in the well-equipped kitchen. Apart from this, she wanted R63100 spousal maintenance a month from him.
Included in the list of her monthly expenditure, handed to court to motivate for the maintenance, was a demand for R10000 a month for her hair and nails.
The maintenance battle was postponed indefinitely at the end of last year .
While couples will continue to argue in future over their household possessions - sometimes as mere as a coffee maker or a Soda Stream - I will happily return to my Marie Kondo duties over the next few days.