Lawsuit for the Recovery of Jewelry
Jewelry Claim Lawsuit
In this month’s edition of Kadına Dair (About Women) Newspaper—the only national newspaper for women in Turkey—in the section reserved for me, I will attempt to provide information for my valued readers on which lawsuit should be filed regarding which spouse is entitled to the jewelry worn at a wedding during the divorce process.
First and foremost, spouses hold full rights to manage, utilize, and dispose of the jewelry of which they are the owners. Parties have the right to file a jewelry claim lawsuit for their requests regarding jewelry without delay, whether during the continuation of the marriage union or after the termination of the marriage, within the legal time limits.
According to the generally accepted understanding, gold and silver ornaments worn by women are called jewelry. The items that the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) considers and accepts as jewelry are as follows: bracelets, earrings, rings, anklets, necklaces, brooches, and chokers.
As a rule, in the legal property regime of participation in acquired property, each spouse has the right to manage, utilize, and dispose of both their personal property and acquired property during the continuation of the marriage. The rights to utilize, manage, and dispose of jewelry are also accepted as belonging to the spouses themselves regarding their jewelry claims. For a jewelry claim lawsuit to be accepted, the Family Court requires the existence of certain conditions. These are: a request must be made, the existence of the jewelry must be proven, and it must be proven that the jewelry remained with the defendant party.
There is no need for the currently applicable property regime between spouses to be terminated in order for them to claim personal or acquired property that is in the possession of the other within the marriage union. A jewelry claim can also be requested through an independent lawsuit filed in accordance with procedural rules. A jewelry claim lawsuit is not an auxiliary claim to a divorce lawsuit. If a lawsuit has not been filed by the jewelry claimant in accordance with procedural rules, the Family Court judge cannot be expected to make a ruling regarding the jewelry claim.
In Article 6 of the Turkish Civil Code;
I. Burden of proof
Article 6 - Unless there is a provision to the contrary in the law, each of the parties is obliged to prove the existence of the facts upon which they base their rights.
It is stipulated that each of the parties is under the obligation to prove the existence of the facts upon which they base their rights. According to the general rule accepted in the case law of the Court of Cassation, the burden of proof falls on the person who alleges or defends a situation contrary to the ordinary flow of life. If one of the parties aims to produce a favorable legal result for themselves, they bear the burden of proving this situation. In the generally accepted and ordinary flow of life, it is expected that the jewelry in question should be on the woman’s person or kept and preserved in the home.
A jewelry claim lawsuit is a type of lawsuit that must be filed in the Family Court. However, in regions where there is no Family Court, the Civil Court of First Instance serves as a Family Court. In the petition to be prepared, especially for filing a jewelry claim lawsuit, the identity, Turkish ID number, and address information of the parties must be written accurately without room for error. Subsequently, the value of the lawsuit must be stated as a clear amount. Afterward, in order to avoid the loss of rights in procedural law, adding the phrase "reserving our rights regarding the excess" is advisable due to the possibility that the value of the lawsuit may be higher. In a jewelry claim lawsuit, you must state the date you were married and whether you have a common child from this marriage. Another point that must be emphasized is that it is not mandatory to file for divorce in order to file a jewelry claim lawsuit. For example, when a spouse leaves the common residence due to events occurring during the marriage and begins living elsewhere, they have the right to file only a jewelry claim lawsuit without filing for divorce. When preparing the petition, one must prove that the spouse has been living at their mother's house for over two months due to the defendant's failure to fulfill their obligations arising from the marriage union, that the defendant spouse threw the plaintiff out of the house late at night and did not give them the opportunity to take the jewelry with them, resulting in the jewelry remaining in the common residence, and that there is a necessity to file this current lawsuit.
Another issue that must be emphasized in the petition is that the number, weight, quality, and quantity of the jewelry remaining with the defendant must be clearly stated, and their monetary values must be written, if possible by presenting photographs to the file. It is necessary to request from the Family Court judge that the jewelry be returned by the defendant in kind, or if it is not possible to find it in kind, that its current value be collected from the defendant. Documents to be presented as evidence in a jewelry claim lawsuit include: population and family registration record, witness list, list of jewelry, and photographs of the jewelry.
In the decision of the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation with file number 2016/21122 E. and 2018/9282 K.; the lawsuit of a woman who left the house following an argument with the defendant in the middle of the night must be accepted.
As for the request for the return of the 5 Adana twist bracelets and 1 set of jewelry that the plaintiff claimed were in the possession of the defendant, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff woman. The heard plaintiff witnesses stated that upon the argument the parties had late at night, the plaintiff woman called her brother and left the house, and that when the plaintiff arrived at the house, she only had two bracelets she used daily with her (some witnesses stated they were worn on her arm, others stated they were in her bag), and that there was no other gold jewelry. The defendant's witnesses also stated that the plaintiff left the house with her brother following the argument the parties had late at night, and that they had no knowledge of what the jewelry was. Accordingly, based on the entire scope of the file, it is clear that the plaintiff woman left the house as a result of an argument she had with the defendant in the middle of the night. Considering the way the plaintiff woman left the house, the fact that she had with her two bracelets she used daily and which were on her person at that moment does not mean that the plaintiff woman also took the other jewelry that is the subject of the lawsuit with her. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not even make these two bracelets the subject of the lawsuit. Therefore, it must be accepted that the plaintiff has proven the claim that the jewelry remained in the defendant's possession.