COURT OF APPEALS OF THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY
3rd Civil Chamber
Docket No: 2013/900
Decision: 2013/2605
Decision Date: February 19, 2013
REQUEST FOR RETURN OF ENGAGEMENT GIFTS – REQUIREMENT THAT UNUSUAL GIFTS MUST BE RETURNED IN ACTUAL FORM IF THEY ARE NOT AVAILABLE IN ACTUAL FORM – CONCLUDING ALL GOLD JEWELRY AND ORNAMENTS OTHER THAN THE ENGAGEMENT RING CONSIDERED UNUSUAL GIFTS – REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT
SUMMARY: The plaintiff requested and sued for the return of the engagement gifts in kind, or the equivalent of their value of … TL, plus legal interest, if they were not available. In the event of a break-up of an engagement, unusual gifts must be returned in kind, or if they are not available, they must be returned in kind, or a refund must be requested in accordance with the rules of unjust enrichment. According to established practice of the Court of Cassation, all gold, jewelry, and ornaments other than the engagement ring are considered unusual gifts. Therefore, the court, taking these principles into account, should have ordered the return of the watch, which was proven to have been worn by the plaintiff’s fiancée. However, the erroneous assessment necessitated the reversal of the judgment.
Case: In the petition, the main plaintiff requested the return of the engagement gifts worth 25,169 TL. In the counterclaim, the defendant requested the return of 500 TL in pecuniary damages and 15,000 TL in nonpecuniary damages, along with interest and costs. The court partially accepted the main claim and dismissed the counterclaim due to the statute of limitations. The plaintiff appealed the decision.
After determining that the appeal was timely, all documents in the case file were read and considered:
Decision: In his petition, the plaintiff’s attorney stated that his client, the plaintiff, and the defendant were engaged, but that the engagement was broken off due to the defendant’s wrongful acts. He requested and sued to recover from the defendant the engagement gifts in full, or the equivalent of 25,169 TL, plus legal interest, if they had not been received.
The defendant filed a counterclaim, requesting that the plaintiff and the defendant be entitled to 5,000 TL in pecuniary damages and 15,000 TL in nonpecuniary damages due to the wrongful termination of the engagement.
The court partially accepted the main claim and ruled that the defendant be entitled to 12,466 TL, if the engagement gifts were not received in full, and dismissed the counterclaim due to the statute of limitations. The plaintiff appealed the judgment. The plaintiff’s other appeals were not valid.
However, in the present case, the court deemed two <fossil> brand watches, given by the plaintiff to the defendant as an engagement gift, to be considered <customary gifts> and rejected the request for their return.
According to Article 122 of the Turkish Civil Code (TCC), if an engagement ends for reasons other than marriage, gifts given to the fiancées outside of customary circumstances may be requested back. According to this article, no fault is required in lawsuits seeking the return of gifts outside of customary circumstances due to the termination of an engagement. In the event of a termination of an engagement, the gifts outside of customary circumstances may be returned in kind, or if they are not available, they may be returned in kind, or their equivalent may be requested back in accordance with the rules of unjust enrichment.
Usual (customary) gifts refer to items that become worn and consumed through wearing and use. As a rule, the return of items that become worn and consumed through wearing and use (such as dresses, shoes, etc.) cannot be ordered.
According to established practice of the Court of Cassation, all gold, jewelry, and ornaments other than the engagement ring are considered <customary gifts>.
Therefore, while the court should have ordered the return of the two watches, which were proven to have been worn by the plaintiff’s fiancée, to the defendant, based on these principles and fundamentals, the erroneous assessment necessitated the reversal of the written judgment.
Conclusion: Therefore, the written judgment, without considering the principles explained above, was inaccurate. The appeals were upheld for these reasons, and the judgment was REVERSED pursuant to Article 428 of the Civil Procedure Code. The prepaid appeal fee was refunded to the appellant upon request. It was unanimously decided on February 19, 2013.