[ad_1]
Following the critical precedent decision of the General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Appeals (YHGK) regarding wedding jewelry (YHGK, 04.03.2020, E. 2017 / 3-1040, K. 2020/240), many questions from my readers.
Consistent with this preceding decision, which determines the criteria for sharing jewelry in divorce, jewelry that is worn by a man at the wedding and that is not “female-specific” can now be gifted to men. Summing up the questions about what this new post will look like, my ST male reader’s sample question is as follows:
IF THE MOTHER’S BRACELET IS ON THE MAN
“We married my wife three years ago. We are getting divorced. There are grams, quarters, halves, full gold attached to me, and even my grandmother’s memory, one of which is diamonds, three of which are 22 karat gold, and four bracelets my mother wore. My wife also wore necklaces, earrings, and bracelets. Also, there are gold, quarter, gram, half, and quarter dollar coins in the jewelry box. How is the exchange of wedding jewelry in court in light of the Supreme Court decisions? Can I get back the heirloom bracelets my mom used to wear? “
NEW JEWELRY SHARED IN 7 ITEMS
class = “cf”>
The answer to questions from ST and other readers is from Ömer Uğur Gençcan, Head of the Second Legal Department of the Court of Cassation. After examining YHGK’s decision, Gençcan emphasized that it included his own views and explained the new app from his social media account as follows:
1) Everything that has economic value attributed to a woman belongs to the woman.
2) While all jewelry worn by men belongs to women as a presumption (exception: local custom), only those that are ‘feminine’ as presumptions (exception: local custom) will be considered as belonging to women. Jewels that are not “specific to women”, that is, the gold of the republic, will belong to “men”, such as horse gold, half gold, a quarter of gold, a gram of gold.
3) If the thing attached to a man is something that is not ‘specific to a woman’, it will belong to the man, and the money attached to a man will naturally belong to the man since money is not a ‘female’ thing.
4) Even if the jewelry a man wears is ‘feminine’ (such as bracelet, earring, necklace), if the husband claims and proves that there is no ‘local custom’ in this regard, the ‘feminine’ items will also be delivered to him to the man.
5) If there is a dispute as to whether jewelry worn by a man is “specific to women”, a jeweler’s expert examination will be conducted. If the jewel used is something worn by both men and women, it will belong to the man since it is not exclusively ‘feminine’.
class = “cf”>
6) Those placed in the polls must be distributed equitably “since they were not linked to any of the parties.”
7) If there is an agreement on sharing between the spouses, the ‘rules of agreement’ when sharing will apply. “
In light of the last preceding decision and Gençcan’s statements, I read that the four family heirloom bracelets that his mother wore in ST will be considered “feminine” if there is no special agreement between them, so it seems that they will stay with her husband. Of course, the final decision on jewelry will be made by the court on the case to be presented.
CAN THE CASE ALSO BE OPENED WHILE THE MARRIAGE CONTINUES?
“Can you file alimony cases without filing for divorce during marriage?” The answer to MD’s question is from Mayor Gençcan. Emphasizing that this case must be presented carefully and through an attorney, Gençcan’s response is as follows: “If you can show that you are right in a separate life, you can file a child support case without filing a divorce case. The presentation, execution and completion of a legal case requires legal assistance (attorney). Not only will you lose the case, you will also have to pay the other party’s court costs. “
IS THAT ‘IF I MARRY MY OLD LOVER’ WHY IS THE DIVORCE?
TTS, a male reader from Istanbul, talks about his ex-lover after every argument with his wife for two years and says: “I would be happier if I married my doctor”, he feels very uncomfortable with this situation and asks if he can divorce. The answer is yes.
According to the preceding ruling of the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals dated February 7, 2018, the use of these expressions by one spouse against the other is considered “emotional violence”. According to the department’s decision, “I would be happier if I married my ex-girlfriend” is the reason for the divorce.
