What Is a Jewelry Compensation Lawsuit?
A jewelry compensation lawsuit is a legal action that involves the demand for the return of jewelry items (such as wedding gifts or gold ornaments) in their original form, or if their return is not possible, the payment of their monetary value. The return of jewelry refers to delivering the items as they are, while payment of their value means paying the amount determined as of the date of the lawsuit.
How to File a Jewelry Compensation Lawsuit?
Claims regarding jewelry can be filed as a separate lawsuit from a divorce case, or they may also be included within the divorce proceedings.
In this regard, the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, in its decision dated 17.03.2015, numbered 2014/12981 (E.) and 2015/4638 (K.), stated the following:
“In the petition, the plaintiff requested both divorce and compensation for jewelry. The application fee paid when filing the case covers all the requests stated in the petition. The plaintiff’s claim for jewelry compensation is not an ancillary request to the divorce but is subject to a proportional court fee. Since this proportional fee was neither collected at the time of filing nor rectified during the proceedings, no further procedural steps can be taken without its payment. Therefore, the plaintiff must be duly given time to pay the advance portion of the proportional fee based on the value of the claimed jewelry (in accordance with Articles 30–32 of the Fees Law). If the deficiency is remedied, the merits of this claim should be examined, and a judgment should be rendered accordingly. Otherwise, the procedure stipulated under Article 30 of the Fees Law must be followed. Rendering a judgment without considering these issues is deemed improper.”
Statute of Limitations in Jewelry Compensation Lawsuits
The statute of limitations for jewelry compensation cases must be examined from two different perspectives. Accordingly, if the jewelry items are still in the possession of the defendant (i.e., the defendant is the possessor), there is no statute of limitations applicable to the jewelry compensation claim — the lawsuit can be filed at any time.
However, in cases where the plaintiff demands the monetary value of the jewelry instead of their physical return, the claim is subject to a 10-year statute of limitations in accordance with Article 146 of the Turkish Code of Obligations.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Is a Jewelry Compensation Lawsuit Dependent on the Divorce Case?
A jewelry compensation lawsuit (ziynet alacağı davası) is considered a type of debt claim; therefore, it is not dependent on the divorce case. It should also be noted that such a lawsuit can be filed after the divorce case or even during the marriage.
2. Who Can File a Jewelry Compensation Lawsuit?
If one of the spouses claims that the jewelry has been taken or disposed of without their consent, they have the right to file a jewelry compensation lawsuit against the other spouse or even a third party.
3. To Which Spouse Do the Jewelry Items (Wedding Ornaments) Belong?
In its decision dated April 4, 2024 (Yargıtay 2nd Civil Chamber, Case No. 2023/5704, Decision No. 2024/2402), the Court of Cassation addressed the issue of ownership of jewelry items as follows:
“According to our Chamber’s previous precedents, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary or a local custom, all items (jewelry, gold, foreign currency, Turkish lira, etc.) given or attached to either spouse at the wedding are presumed to belong to the woman.
However, considering that the traditions and customs of our society evolve over time, the dynamic nature of economic and legal relations, and especially the fact that—apart from jewelry specific to the woman—other items of economic value are often given to both spouses during the wedding to contribute to their shared life together, it has become necessary to amend our Chamber’s precedents regarding ownership disputes over such items.
According to our Chamber’s new principled opinion:
- If there is an agreement between the spouses regarding the sharing of jewelry, the division shall be made in accordance with that agreement.
- If there is no agreement, but a local custom is claimed and proven, the division shall be made according to that custom.
- Otherwise, as a rule, all items of economic value given or attached to the husband or wife belong to the respective person.
- However, if among the items there are those specific to one gender (male or female), such items are deemed to have been given to that person.
- If there is a dispute regarding whether an item is gender-specific, an expert examination should be conducted.
- If the expert determines that the item is suitable for both genders, it shall belong to the spouse to whom it was given or attached.
- As for items placed in a wedding gift box or pouch, if the item is specific to one gender, it is deemed to belong to that person; if it is suitable for both genders, it should be considered joint property.”
The Court concluded that any dispute on this matter should be resolved in line with these principles, taking into account the parties’ claims and defenses.
4. How Are Jewelry Items Proven in a Jewelry Compensation Lawsuit?
In a jewelry compensation lawsuit, the female spouse may prove the existence of the jewelry through video recordings, photographs, or witness testimony, whereas the male spouse must prove his claims through written documents or witnesses.
However, if the woman voluntarily converts (sells) her jewelry into cash and that money is used for family expenses or another purpose, the husband bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that the woman gave her consent to such use.
Some Court of Cassation Decisions Regarding Jewelry Compensation Lawsuits
- “In the present case, the defendant husband argued that the jewelry demanded by the plaintiff wife had been spent during the marriage on wedding debts and medical expenses incurred for having a child. However, he failed to prove that the plaintiff wife had voluntarily handed over the jewelry without the intention of reclaiming it. Therefore, as also accepted by the court, since the defendant husband could not prove that the jewelry spent for common needs had been given to him voluntarily and without a condition of return, it is indisputable that he is obliged to return the jewelry subject to the lawsuit. However, pursuant to Article 188 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK), ‘Facts admitted by the parties or their attorneys before the court are no longer disputed and do not require proof.’ In his statement of defense, the defendant declared that a total of 12 bracelets had been presented at the wedding. In this case, the fact that 12 bracelets were given to the plaintiff wife at the wedding is no longer in dispute. Therefore, the court should have taken these principles into account and, considering the defendant’s acknowledgment regarding the number of bracelets given to the plaintiff wife, rendered a decision accepting the claim based on a total of 12 bracelets. Instead, due to a mistaken evaluation, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff based on only 7 bracelets, without considering the 5 bracelets that the defendant admitted were given during the wedding. This was deemed incorrect and required reversal of the judgment…” (Court of Cassation, General Assembly of Civil Chambers, Decision dated 04.03.2020, Case No: 2017/1040, Decision No: 2020/240)
- “26. In light of all these general explanations, when the concrete case is evaluated; the defendant husband acknowledged that the disputed jewelry had been sold and spent during the marriage, but claimed that the amount of jewelry was not as much as alleged. In this situation, the husband bears the burden of proving that he either returned these items—considered the personal property of the wife—or that he received them with the wife’s consent and without the obligation of return. However, it has been understood that he failed to fulfill this burden of proof. 27.Therefore, what the court should have done was to collect the evidence presented by the plaintiff wife to prove the existence of the jewelry in dispute in terms of their type, nature, number, and quantity; if necessary, to re-hear all the witnesses of both parties regarding this issue and ask them about their direct observations and knowledge of what jewelry items existed; and if the existence of the jewelry is proven beyond doubt and uncertainty, to determine their value as of the date of the lawsuit by obtaining an expert report if necessary. Only after evaluating all the collected evidence should a judgment have been rendered. However, the court ruled to dismiss the case on the grounds that it was not proven, without taking into account these procedural requirements. Such a decision is contrary to procedure and law, and therefore necessitated reversal of the judgment.”** (Court of Cassation, General Assembly of Civil Chambers, Decision dated 30.03.2021, Case No: 2017/2715, Decision No: 2021/360)
- “15. In light of all these general explanations, when the concrete case is evaluated; it is understood that the plaintiff’s claim concerns the fact that her jewelry was taken from her during the marriage and was not returned. The plaintiff based this claim on witness testimony. The existence of the gold jewelry requested in the statement of claim was proven by the expert report dated 23.09.2016 contained in the case file. The plaintiff presented witnesses …, …, … …, … …, … …, and … … to testify that the proven jewelry was taken from her and not returned. Among these witnesses, the plaintiff’s brother, …, stated in summary that “after the wedding night, the jewelry given to the bride was kept by the husband’s family due to the risk of theft; later, part of the jewelry was sold to purchase a car; and the defendant’s father personally sold the remaining jewelry and spent it to pay his own debts. Therefore, there was no jewelry left that the plaintiff could take with her when she left the home.” The plaintiff’s mother, …, stated in summary that “the gold jewelry presented at the wedding was personally handed over by her daughter to her mother-in-law, that part of this jewelry was used to purchase a car, and the rest was sold by the defendant’s parents to pay their debts.” Another brother of the plaintiff, …, testified that “after the wedding, part of the jewelry was given to the defendant’s mother for safekeeping; the bracelets left with the plaintiff were sold to buy a car; and when they went to retrieve his sister’s belongings, their uncle, …, asked the defendant’s father where the gold was, to which he replied that the gold had been sold to pay his debts.” The uncle, …, also testified that “when they went to the marital home to collect his niece’s belongings after the parties began living separately, he asked the defendant’s father where the gold and bracelets were and why they were not being returned, and the father replied that they had been sold to pay debts.” In contrast, the defendant’s witnesses stated that they had no knowledge regarding the type or quantity of the jewelry and claimed that the plaintiff took the gold with her when she left the house. However, the defendant did not provide any information to the court regarding the source of the money used to purchase the car during the marriage. Although some witnesses stated that they saw bracelets on the woman’s arm during the period of de facto separation, only … provided details, stating that after the couple’s child was born, he saw one, two, or three bracelets on her arm. 16. Considering the case file as a whole, it is clear that the plaintiff’s witnesses gave consistent testimony supporting her claims. Therefore, the court’s decision to dismiss the case without acknowledging that the plaintiff had proven beyond doubt that the jewelry given at the wedding existed and was taken and sold by the defendant was contrary to law and required reversal.” (Court of Cassation, General Assembly of Civil Chambers, Decision dated 05.07.2023, Case No: 2023/191, Decision No: 2023/703)
- “In the present case, the proven jewelry items — one 14-carat bracelet, two 15-gram bracelets, and twelve 10-gram bracelets — are of a nature specific to women’s personal ornaments. Unless there is an agreement to the contrary between the spouses or a local custom dictating otherwise, such jewelry is considered to have been gifted to the wife during the marriage, regardless of who presented it or to which spouse it was attached, and thus constitutes her personal property. However, the proven existence of one full gold coin and sixty-five quarter gold coins does not qualify as women’s personal jewelry. If ownership of these items cannot be proven to belong to either spouse individually, they are to be regarded as jointly owned property of the spouses. Accordingly, the court must thoroughly inquire of the parties’ witnesses whether there existed any agreement between the spouses regarding the jewelry or any relevant local custom, and have them explain their statements based on concrete facts. In the event of contradictions among witness statements, a confrontation should be conducted if necessary to resolve inconsistencies. After evaluating all the evidence collectively, the court should: Conclude that the jewelry specific to women is not the wife’s personal property only if the defendant husband can prove it with strong and convincing evidence, Or conclude that the jewelry not specific to women is the wife’s personal property only if the plaintiff wife can prove it with strong and convincing evidence. Otherwise, jewelry not specific to women should be considered jointly owned property of the spouses. Therefore, the court’s judgment based on incomplete examination and investigation was improper.” (Court of Cassation, 8th Civil Chamber, Decision dated 24.09.2020, Case No: 2020/944, Decision No: 2020/5388)
- “The plaintiff–counter-defendant wife bears the burden of proof to establish the existence of the jewelry in dispute, that it was forcibly taken from her when she left the marital home, and that she was prevented from taking it with her, leaving the items behind in the house. In this case, the woman failed to prove that the jewelry in question was taken from her by force, that she was prevented from taking it with her, or that she previously had no opportunity to remove it. Despite this, the court rendered a judgment in error of the above-mentioned principles, which is contrary to procedure and law.” (Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Chamber, Decision dated 28.03.2017, Case No: 2015/24291, Decision No: 2017/3455)
