Case for return of wedding jewelry (jewelry)

According to our traditional customs, families and guests present various jewelry items (gold, bracelets, necklaces, earrings, rings, etc.) or money to the bride and groom in order to celebrate their marriage in the jewelry ceremony, which has become an indispensable part of weddings. gets stuck.

When couples decide to divorce for some reason, the question of who will own the wedding jewelry comes to mind. And most of the time it becomes a big problem because no agreement can be reached.

Unfortunately, there is no clear legal regulation on this issue in practice. It has always remained a controversial issue with different Supreme Court jurisprudence. However, it is possible to shed light on the issue in the light of the current and practical Supreme Court decisions. That is;

WHOSE WEDDING JEWELRY (JEWELERIES) belong to?

According to the well-established Supreme Court jurisprudence, jewelery given as gifts to the bride and groom during the wedding is subject to TMK Article 220. Accordingly, it is considered "the woman's personal property". It does not matter whether the jewelry in question is worn by the bride or the groom, or whether it is worn on the bride or the groom. However, gifts given for the personal use of only one of the parties are excluded. For example: A wristwatch worn by the groom, or a name written on a dog tag worn by the groom.

In the decision numbered 2017/16859 E. 2017/17965 K. of the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, dated 20/12/2017, it was stated that "According to the established practice of our Chamber, as a rule, the jewelery worn during the wedding, regardless of who wears it, is deemed to be donated to the woman and is now considered the woman's personal property, unless there is an agreement to the contrary." It clarifies controversial issues by expressing it as follows.

THE NEW AND FINAL DECISION OF THE COURT OF COURT ON WEDDING JEWELRY

Jewelry; It is made of precious metals such as gold and silver; It is defined as an ornament worn by people. It is possible to define jewelery as gifts given to the bride and groom on the occasion of marriage. In this context, jewelry such as bracelets, gold cuffs, necklaces, chokers, jewelry sets, bracelets, watches, earrings and rings are considered jewelery.

In the light of the decisions of various chambers of the Supreme Court, we talked about who will own the wedding jewelry worn by the bride and groom. Until today, the Supreme Court's opinion on this issue was that "wedding jewelry is the personal property of the woman, regardless of who wears it."

However, according to the decision of the General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Appeals, 2017/3-1040 e. 2020/240 k. With the decision dated 04.03.2020, some changes were made regarding who the wedding jewelry should belong to. According to the current decision, the "privatization criterion" will now be taken into account when determining who the jewelry will belong to.

One point to consider in this case; The request for the return of wedding jewelry (jewelry) is a situation where the divorce is subject to a relative fee, not a fixed fee, since it is not a part of the divorce. In other words, a relative fee must be paid by calculating the value of the requested wedding jewelry. Calculation of this value includes the amount, type, grams, etc. of the wedding jewelry and money requested by the plaintiff requesting return in the petition, so that the expert can make a correct examination and the judge can make a clear and correct decision. It must be clearly stated in the petition in terms of all quality and quantity.

In the decision numbered 2019/243 E. and 2019/4471 K. of the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, "... In the summary decision and judgment, with the partial acceptance of the case, a provision was made that the jewelery price of 13,453.80 TL should be taken from the defendant and given to the plaintiff, but it was observed that the type, quality, setting, amount and value of the jewelery included in the judgment were not written separately in the judgment. … The type, quality, setting, quantity and value of the goods subject to judgment must be shown separately, and the debt imposed on the parties and the rights granted to them must be stated in a way that does not cause difficulties in execution.

STATEMENT OF LIMITATION IN CASE FOR RETURN OF WEDDING JEWELRY

Request for return of wedding jewelery HMK art. 111/1 "The plaintiff may put forward more than one claim against the same defendant in the same petition by establishing a primary-secondary relationship between them. For this, there must be a legal or economic connection between the demands." It should be stated in the petition in a gradual manner accordingly. In this way, if it is possible to return the wedding jewelry in its original form, it is first requested to be returned in its original form, and if it is not possible to return it in its exact form, a cash fee is requested.

In the ordinary course of life, the jewelry worn at the wedding cannot usually be kept as is. In situations such as economic difficulties or household needs that occur over time, gold is often spent in exchange. However, it is possible to request the return of the wedding jewelery in the same condition it is kept. The return of jewelery as is is a claim based on property rights and is not subject to statute of limitations. However, since it is usually not possible to return it in its entirety, the price is requested in cash. In this case, where it is a compensation case, the Code of Obligations Art. 146 "Unless there is a contrary provision in the law, every receivable is subject to a ten-year statute of limitations." According to the provision, in case of a request for cash refund of wedding jewelry, a 10-year statute of limitations applies.

WHAT EVIDENCE IS USED IN THE CASE FOR RETURN OF WEDDING JEWELRY (JEWELRY)?

Since the existence of the wedding jewelry must first be proven in the case of return of the wedding jewelry (jewelry), photographs of the wedding day, video recordings, documents and witnesses about where they were kept or how they were used, if they were spent, expert evidence and oath evidence can be used as evidence in this type of case, since the file will need to be forwarded in the calculations.

BURDEN OF PROOF IN THE CASE FOR RETURN OF WEDDING JEWELRY

The established idea that we frequently encounter in the Supreme Court jurisprudence; The idea is that jewelery items are easily portable and storable under normal conditions, and that they are usually kept on the woman's person or in the shared residence, so that in case of any separation or moving away from home, the woman will take these items with her. Therefore, the woman who requests the return of her wedding jewelry must clearly state the reason for leaving home, why she did not take the wedding jewelry with her, or whether they kept it in the shared residence where she lived, where it was kept if she cannot access it because it was kept elsewhere (e.g., in her husband's family's house, or in a bank account or safe belonging to the husband), her witnesses or evidence regarding this if it was cashed and spent during the marriage union, and whether she was prevented from taking the jewelry, which is the woman's personal property, when she left the house. must declare in the case. Therefore, the burden of proving that the wedding jewelry remained with the husband was placed on the woman who requested the return.

In another case that is important regarding the burden of proof, this is;

The defendant husband's claim that the wedding jewelry was used to meet different needs related to the house within the marriage will not relieve him of this debt. However, if he proves that the wedding jewelry was used without being returned to the woman later and that the woman approved and donated it with her free will, the defendant husband can no longer be burdened with the obligation to return the possessions. Generally, in practice, proving this situation is very difficult and almost impossible. However, with the right strategy and appropriate evidence, the right granted by law will become available.

The Supreme Court 3rd Civil Chamber's Decision dated 18/01/2018, No. 2017/17245 E. 2018/361 K. states on this issue"If the defendant party proves that these items were given to the husband not to be returned, that they were exchanged with the wife's request and approval and spent for joint needs, the husband will be saved from returning them." Mentioned as.

Again, in the Decision No. 2014/26823 E. 2014/26223 K. of the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals dated 22/12/2014; "The jewelry and jewelry worn at the wedding are deemed to belong to the woman, unless there is an agreement to the contrary between the parties. Unless it is proven that they were given on the condition that they will not be returned, the fact that they are exchanged and spent by the husband for his debts does not relieve him of the debt of return. In his response to the woman's demands for jewelry and jewelry, the plaintiff-defendant husband declared and accepted that "all of them were used for engagement, wedding and household goods debts"; He also could not prove that the money for the jewelry was given to him by the woman with the intention of not returning it. For these reasons, the request for jewelry money should be accepted; Giving a decision in written form is against the procedure and the law and requires reversal." It has been clarified to say.

As a result, at this point, it will be beneficial for the plaintiff (requesting return) woman to carry out this process with an expert lawyer on both sides, considering the possibility that the defendant husband can get rid of the debt burden with the correct theses to be established and the correct evidence to be used, on many special points that can seriously affect the course and outcome of the case, such as the correct time when the return of the possessions should be requested, and the way of requesting should be based on the law, the burden of proof, the plot of events, the correct evidence, and within the statute of limitations. I am of the opinion.

JEWELERY CASE OATH EVIDENCE

It is possible to rely on oath evidence within the framework of the claim about wedding jewelry. The party relying on oath evidence should be reminded of its right to propose an oath.

In a decision of the 6th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, it was stated that "In the concrete case, the plaintiff woman could not prove with the statements of the witnesses that she was prevented from taking the jewelery in question when she left the house and that it was forcibly taken away from her, and that she did not have the opportunity to take it before. However, since the plaintiff clearly relied on oath evidence in the evidence list, the plaintiff was reminded of her right to offer an oath to the defendant that the jewelery was taken away from her and that it was prevented from being taken away and that it remained on the defendant's side, and a decision was made accordingly. It is stated as follows: "As it was not deemed appropriate to make a decision in writing as a result of incomplete examination, the decision had to be overturned."

OATH EVIDENCE You can review our other article for details.

THE COURT IN CHARGE IN THE JEWELERY CASE

It is not necessary for the spouses to be divorced in order to file a claim for jewelry receivables. Since spouses always have the authority to dispose of jewelry, they can still claim jewelry while the marriage continues. During the divorce process, it can be requested together with the divorce case or by filing a separate lawsuit, depending on the request. In the Ziynet Receivable case, the court of the defendant's residence, which is the court of general jurisdiction, has jurisdiction.

The request for jewelry receivable is a request arising from Family Law, which is the 2nd Book of the Turkish Civil Code. The competent court in cases arising from Family Law is the Family Court. In the Ziynet Receivable case, the competent court; In the jurisdiction where the case will be filed, Family Courts are responsible in places where there is a Family Court, and Civil Courts of First Instance are responsible in places where there is no Family Court. The Civil Court of First Instance must continue and decide the case as the Family Court.

"As for the appeal objections regarding the jewellery; the plaintiff's attorney claimed that the jewelery belonging to his client, which was his personal property, was taken by the defendant spouse and not returned. In Article 226/1 of the TMK, it is stated that each spouse will take back the property of the other spouse. Considering this regulation in the article and the regulations written in Article 4 of the Law on the Establishment, Duties and Trial Procedures of Family Courts No. 4787, the jewelery "The Family Court has jurisdiction in the lawsuits filed against the jewellery's belongings. Therefore, while the court should go into the merits of the case and make a decision based on the result obtained after the parties' evidence is fully collected, it is not deemed appropriate to reject the petition due to its jurisdiction." It is stated as follows.

CAN A SPOUSE WITHOUT OFFICIAL MARRIAGE REQUEST JEWELRY?

- In the absence of an official marriage, there is no legal obstacle to filing a lawsuit for jewelry receivables. In such cases, the competent court is the Civil Courts of First Instance, which are the courts of general jurisdiction.

Supreme Court 4th HD. In a decision dated 04.06.2012;

"In the concrete case, there is no engagement or marriage relationship between the parties in accordance with the methods and conditions stipulated in TMK Article 134 et seq. For this reason, it is not possible to resolve the dispute by the family court and within the framework of the provisions of the Second Book of the Civil Code regarding the legal nature and consequences of the engagement or marriage.

Since the incident in question is not among the cases and affairs arising from the Second Book of the Civil Code No. 4721, the dispute must be resolved in the general law courts. In this case, the local court, as the Civil Court of First Instance, should have tried the case and resolved the dispute by going into the merits of the matter, but the decision of lack of jurisdiction with a written justification was not in accordance with the procedure and law, so the decision had to be reversed." He stated as follows.