INTRODUCTION
One of the most common disputes arising during or after divorce cases involves determining which spouse owns the jewellery and money gifted at the wedding and whether the spouse entitled to these assets can reclaim them. Jewellery, often classified as bridal ornaments, refers to items made from precious metals like gold and silver, typically worn as accessories. These items are also considered gifts exchanged during weddings. Items such as bracelets, necklaces, jewellery sets, watches, and earrings are examples of jewellery that fall into this category. Questions about the legal status of these items, particularly during divorce or death, who owns them, how they should be handled if they have been consumed to meet the family’s common needs during marriage, and how these matters can be proven in court often raise practical uncertainties.
Historically, Supreme Court of Appeal (“Supreme Court”) jurisprudence accepted that jewellery gifted at weddings generally belonged to the woman. However, given that such jewellery holds a symbolic and reciprocal social role in society, Supreme Court has shifted its stance. In a landmark ruling, Supreme Court established that the jewellery belongs to whoever it was gifted at the wedding. This article will review which party is entitled to the jewellery considering key rulings by Supreme Court.
A. SUPREME COURT ’S FORMER VIEW
Since The Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (“TMK”) and related legislation did not explicitly regulate the ownership of wedding jewellery in divorce cases, courts applied customary law under Article 1 of the TMK, leading to varied rulings. Supreme Court ’s 2nd Civil Chamber, responsible for reviewing appeals and setting precedents in these matters, traditionally ruled that all wedding jewellery belonged to the female spouse. For example, in its ruling on November 19, 2018 and 2017/1769 C. 2018/13037 D. Supreme Court stated;
“Regardless of who gifted the jewellery during the marriage, it is considered to have been donated to the woman and is therefore classified as her personal property. The husband can only retain the jewellery if he proves that it was given to him without the intent of returning it.’’
Supreme Court ‘s General Assembly further held that all jewellery and money gifted to the woman belonged to her. Jewellery gifted to the man, which was traditionally considered feminine, also belonged to the woman, while non-feminine jewellery and money belonged to the man. In other rulings, Supreme Court stated that regardless of who gave or received the jewellery during the wedding, in the absence of an agreement or customary rule, the jewellery was considered the woman’s personal property. This view was rooted in the belief that women were financially weaker than men and that the jewellery would help the woman sustain herself after divorce.
For instance, in Supreme Court ‘s General Assembly decision dated April 13, 2021 and 2017/1038 C. 2021/458 D. it ruled:
“There is no written provision in our legislation regarding the ownership of all items with monetary value gifted during the wedding. Therefore, customary law is applied. According to Supreme Court ‘s consistent practice, based on widespread customs and the realities of the country, all jewellery and money given at the wedding, regardless of who gives it and to which spouse, is presumed to be donated to the woman and is considered her personal property unless otherwise agreed upon or proven. Therefore, it is presumed that the jewellery and money gifted to the man also belong to the woman unless proven otherwise. It is accepted that such jewellery, given by families and relatives for the woman’s financial security in marriage, cannot be considered temporary unless the woman agrees otherwise. Unless it is proven that the jewellery was given without the intention of returning it, the recipient is obligated to return it.”
the court, by establishing a precedent, introduced the distinction of “jewellery specifically intended for women” regarding wedding gifts and thus created an exceptional ruling, allowing for the possibility that jewellery not considered specifically for women could be awarded to the man. Due to the differing decisions by the Supreme Court on this matter, the General Assembly of the Supreme Court on issued a ruling dated April 13, 2021 and 2017/1038 C., 2021/458 D. stating that “based on general customs and the realities of the country, regardless of who gives the jewellery and to which spouse it is gifted, in the absence of a contrary custom or agreement, the jewellery is presumed to be donated to the woman and is considered her personal property.” and this decision ensured consistency in the jurisprudence.
B. RECENT VIEW ON DETERMINING OWNERSHIP OF JEWELRY
The 2nd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, which had previously ruled that, as a general rule, wedding jewellery belongs to the woman, reversed this precedent with its most recent decision dated April 4, 2024, and 2023/5704 C., 2024/2402 D. In this decision, the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court departed from its earlier jurisprudence and ruled that jewellery given to the man belongs to him, while jewellery placed in a shared safe is considered joint property of both parties. The court stated;
“Our previous jurisprudence stated that, in the absence of an agreement or a customary rule to the contrary, all items gifted or worn at the wedding (jewellery, gold, foreign currency, Turkish lira, etc.), regardless of who gave them and to which spouse, were presumed to belong to the woman. However, with the gradual change in our society’s customs and traditions, the dynamic nature of economic and legal relationships, and especially the practice of giving or gifting valuable items beyond jewellery traditionally intended for women, in order to financially contribute to the couple as they establish a joint life, it has become necessary to revise our jurisprudence regarding the distribution of valuable items given to the spouses at weddings. According to our Chamber’s new principled view: ‘If there is an agreement between the parties regarding the distribution of the jewellery, the distribution should follow that agreement. If there is no agreement, and if the existence of a local custom is claimed and proven, the distribution should be in accordance with that custom. Otherwise, as a general rule, all valuable items given to or worn by the man and woman belong to them individually. However, if any of the jewellery or items are specifically intended for one gender (for the man or the woman), they are presumed to belong to that gender. If there is a dispute about whether the item is gender-specific, and if necessary, an expert examination should be conducted. If the expert examination determines that the item is suitable for both genders, the item will belong to the spouse to whom it was given. Regarding the ownership of valuable items placed in a shared safe or bag, if the item is gender-specific, it is presumed to belong to that gender. If it is determined that the item is suitable for both genders, it should be considered joint property.’ Any dispute should be resolved in accordance with these principles, taking into account the claims and defenses of the parties.”
As stated in this decision, in the absence of a local custom or an agreement between the parties to the contrary, the ownership of the items will be determined as follows:
- Jewellery specifically intended for one gender will belong to that spouse. (For example; items such as jewellery sets, bracelets, and earrings, which are traditionally for women, will belong to the woman, while items like men’s watches will belong to the man, regardless of who they were gifted to.)
- Other than that, any jewellery gifted to a specific spouse will belong to that spouse.
- jewellery placed in a shared safe (if not gender-specific) will be considered joint property of both spouses.
If an agreement between the parties or a local custom that contradicts these rules is claimed and proven, the ruling will be made in accordance with the relevant agreement or customary rules.
As seen, the current jurisprudence holds that jewellery given to the man belongs to the man, and jewellery given to the woman belongs to the woman. The concept of gender-specific jewellery remains a subject of debate. However, the general consensus is that if a piece of jewellery is specifically intended for one gender, the decision should be made according to the suitability for that gender. If there is any doubt on this matter, an expert examination should be conducted to clarify. If the expert determines that the jewellery is suitable for both genders, it will be considered to belong to the spouse to whom it was gifted or given.
C. CONCLUSION
Considering the reasons mentioned above and the Supreme Court rulings referenced, it is important to note that the long-standing view once upheld by Supreme Court “based on general customs and the realities of the country, all jewellery gifted at the wedding is presumed to be donated to the woman unless there is a contrary custom or agreement, and it becomes her personal property” has been abandoned. A new approach has been adopted, recognizing that the man also has rights over jewellery gifted at the wedding and items placed in a shared safe. Additionally, future rulings by Supreme Court will likely provide further clarification on how to prove the existence of agreements between the parties or contrary local customs, as well as how to interpret the concept of gender-specific jewellery and these rulings will serve as valuable guidance for both the legal community and the public.
Best Regards,
Kılınç Law & Consulting
