Burden of proof in jewelery case

In our article titled

Case for the return of wedding jewelry (jewelry) , we gave detailed information about who the jewelry belongs to, how to return it, the statute of limitations and what evidence will be used. In this article; Explanations will be made about the competent court in the jewelery case, the burden of proof, and how to proceed in the absence of an official marriage.

Wedding jewelry is considered donated to the woman and is her personal property unless proven otherwise. The established idea that we frequently encounter in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Appeals; 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.

Also, another important situation regarding the burden of proof is this;

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 donated it with her free will, the defendant husband can no longer be burdened with the obligation to return the jewelry. 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.

In its decision dated 18/01/2018 and numbered 2017/17245 E. 2018/361 K. of the Supreme Court of Appeals, it is stated that "If the defendant party proves that these items were given to the husband in order 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." It is mentioned as follows.

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 specific points that can seriously affect the course and outcome of the case, such as the correct time when the return of the jewelry 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.

THE COURT IN CHARGE OF THE JEWELERY CASE

Spouses do not have to be divorced in order to file a lawsuit for jewelry. 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 jewelry 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 jewelry, the plaintiff's attorney claimed that the jewelry, which was considered as his client's 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 No. 4787 on the Establishment, Duties and Trial Procedures of Family Courts. The Family Court has jurisdiction in the cases filed against the jewellery. Therefore, while the court should go into the merits of the case and make a decision based on the conclusion to be 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 Article 134 of the Turkish Civil Code and its following. For this reason, it is not possible for the dispute to be resolved 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 courts of general law. 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.