Summary:
Regarding the claims for moral damages and material damages for work performed, the quorum for a decision could not be reached in the first hearing; in the second hearing, it was determined that the other defendant, Hasan’s father, Veysel, played a role in the plaintiff’s unofficial relationship with his son, who was underage and lacked economic independence; that he was aware that holding a wedding without a formal marriage was unlawful and could have known the consequences; that he acted unlawfully by acting together with his son H… from the beginning of this relationship and by supporting and encouraging his son in this informal relationship; that he could not prove that he made any effort to ensure a formal marriage, nor could he prove that he kept his son under his control and guidance; It was concluded that the defendant V…. was liable because he had employed the plaintiff in his home while his son was in the military, thus benefiting from his services and labor; that the father and son, acting together, caused not only material damage but also the violation of the plaintiff’s personal rights; that it was not possible to isolate the actions of one from those of the other; and that, according to the nature of the dispute and the provisions of the law of obligations regarding torts applicable to the specific case, the defendant V…. was deemed liable. It was unanimously decided that the court’s decision, which was found to be in accordance with procedure and law, should be upheld in this respect as well.
Republic of Turkey
Supreme Court
General Assembly of Law
Case No: 2010/88
Decision No: 2010/126
Date: 24.2.2010
Following the trial in the case of “material and moral damages” between the parties; Upon the request of the parties’ attorneys for a review of the decision dated 10.06.2008 and numbered 2007/263 E.-2009/202 K., issued by the Kütahya 2nd Civil Court of First Instance, which partially accepted the case, the 4th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, with its ruling dated 25.05.2009 and numbered 2008/11629 E.-2009/7023 K., stated the following:
(…1-Based on the documents in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, and the legally valid reasons, especially the absence of any inaccuracy in the evaluation of the evidence, the appeals of the plaintiff and the defendant ………………. Yılmaz should be rejected.
2-Regarding the appeal of the defendant V… Y…, the case concerns the claims for material and moral compensation from the common-law spouse and his father due to separation after a marriage that took place without a formal marriage ceremony. The local court partially accepted the claim; the decision was appealed by the parties.
Defendant V… Y… is the father of the other defendant, who lived a marital life with the plaintiff without a formal marriage ceremony. The marriage between the plaintiff and the common-law spouse, which lasted for three years, ended with the plaintiff leaving the house due to disagreement. In the lawsuit filed afterwards, material and moral compensation was requested along with the jewelry left in the house. The plaintiff named the other defendant, the common-law spouse, and his father, V… Y…, as defendants. The defendant father is held responsible for his son’s actions. Since no reason was found, the case against him should be dismissed. The local court’s decision to hold him jointly liable with the other defendant, based on an unfounded written justification without considering this aspect, is not in accordance with procedure and law, therefore the decision must be overturned….)
Therefore, the appealed decision is overturned in favor of the defendant V… Y…. for the reason shown in paragraph (2) above; the appeals of the plaintiff and defendant H. H… Y…. are rejected for the reasons in the first paragraph, and the case is returned to the lower court. Following the retrial, the court upheld its previous decision.
APPEALANT: Defendant’s attorney
DECISION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF LAW
After examining the case and determining that the appeal against the decision of resistance was filed within the time limit, and after reviewing the documents in the file, the General Assembly of Law considered the matter:
The case concerns a claim for material and moral damages based on a separation that occurred after a marriage without a formal marriage; the claim of joint liability is directed not only against the unmarried spouse but also against his father. The plaintiff’s attorney stated that the plaintiff was deceived by the defendants for three years into believing that a formal marriage had taken place, and that she was expelled from the house when she requested the marriage to be solemnized. The attorney requested that the defendants be ordered to pay jointly and severally 15,000.00 YTL in material damages, representing 2,750 YTL for the value of 5 gold coins, 2 Republic gold coins, and 2 Adana-style gold bracelets left behind in the house; 3,250.00 YTL for her contributions made by working with the defendants for three years; 10,000.00 YTL for the loss of her virginity and the loss of her chance for a good marriage; and 15,000.00 YTL for moral damages for the suffering and distress endured.
The defendants’ attorney stated that it was true that the parties were married without a marriage contract, but that the other claims were unfounded, that a formal marriage could not be performed for various reasons, that defendant H…. H… Y… went to the army shortly after the marriage, and that upon his return from military service, the plaintiff left the house, not being kicked out as alleged, that the gold was not sold and is still in the possession of their client, but that the bracelets in their possession are thin twisted bracelets and that they are ready to pay if requested. Therefore, they requested that the lawsuit filed against the unmarried spouse be dismissed on its merits and the lawsuit filed against his father be dismissed due to lack of standing. Defendant Veysel, in his signed statement at the hearing, stated that the gold remaining in their possession consisted of 4 large gold pieces, 2 half gold pieces, and 2 double twisted bracelets, and that there were no others, and that he was ready to return them in kind; the plaintiff’s attorney stated that they had no objection to this statement by the defendant. The court ruled as follows: The court ruled that 4 large gold pieces (referred to as “gramise”), 2 half-gold pieces, and 2 double-twisted bracelets should be recovered from the defendants and returned to the plaintiff; that 3,000.00 YTL in moral damages should be collected jointly and severally from the defendants and given to the plaintiff; that the claim for 3,250.00 YTL in material damages for the plaintiff’s work should be fully accepted and collected jointly and severally from the defendants and given to the plaintiff; and that the claim for material damages due to the loss of virginity and the loss of the chance to have a good marriage, as well as other excessive claims, should be rejected. Upon appeal by the parties’ attorneys, the Special Chamber rejected all appeals of the plaintiff’s attorney and the defendant’s common-law spouse; the decision regarding the other defendant, the common-law spouse’s father, was overturned on the grounds that he was not liable, as detailed in the heading section above. The defendant’s attorney appealed the Local Court’s previous ruling, which upheld its previous decision. The initial court decision, having become final regarding the liability of the defendant common-law spouse, has led to a dispute before the General Assembly of Law concerning whether the defendant’s father, the common-law spouse, bears legal responsibility, and whether the court’s initial decision included a clear assessment of this defendant. First, it is beneficial to present the relevant evidence and the specific characteristics of the case:
In this specific case, the plaintiff woman was born on August 15, 1984, and the defendant H…. H…. was born on April 17, 1983. They informally united on June 20, 2002, with the knowledge and encouragement of the other defendant, the father, through a wedding ceremony; they did not have a formal marriage. After the wedding, they did not move to an independent house but lived together in the same house with the other defendant (H…’s father), V…, for approximately 3 years. Defendant H…. H…. Between December 1, 2003, and March 1, 2005, the defendant served in the military for approximately 15 months and was not at home. During this period, the plaintiff woman continued to stay at the home of the other defendant, V…., and performed the tasks assigned to her; she contributed to the budget of this household. It should be emphasized that this informal relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant H…. is not a marriage in the sense of the Civil Code and does not create a family law relationship between the parties. Therefore, the relationship between the parties should be evaluated not according to the principles of family law, but according to the rules of contract law, especially the provisions relating to torts. The court accepted the existence of the tort committed by the defendant H… H…., and this aspect was finalized without being subject to reversal. Whether the other defendant, the father of the defendant Hasan, is jointly and severally liable with his son was also resolved within the framework of the rules of contract law; During the discussions in the General Assembly of Law, the defendant V….’s responsibility regarding the jewelry and other claims was considered and voted on separately. In the examination of the claim for material compensation related to the jewelry;
Defendant V…., in his signed and explicit statement recorded in the hearing minutes dated March 19, 2008, stated, “Apart from the bracelets that remain with us, there are no other bracelets except the 4 large gold bracelets called ‘gremise’, 2 half-gold bracelets, and 2 double-twisted bracelets that we wore; I am ready to return these as well,” thus accepting his personal responsibility, and the plaintiff did not object to this statement. In light of this explicit acceptance, this matter was decided by a majority vote in the first meeting, and the majority opinion accepted that defendant Veysel has responsibility for the return of the jewelry mentioned in the statement, and that the local court’s decision in this regard was not incorrect and should be upheld.
Regarding the plaintiff’s other claims; concerning the claims for moral damages and material damages for work performed, the quorum for a decision could not be reached in the first hearing; in the second hearing, it was determined that the other defendant, Hasan’s father, Veysel, played a role in the plaintiff’s unregistered relationship with his son, who was underage and lacked economic independence; that he was aware that holding a wedding without a formal marriage was unlawful and that he could have known the consequences; that he acted unlawfully by acting together with his son H… from the beginning of this relationship and by supporting and encouraging his son in this informal relationship; that he also acted unlawfully; that he could not prove that he made any effort to ensure a formal marriage, and that he kept his son under his control and guidance; It was concluded that the defendant V…. was liable because he had employed the plaintiff in his home while his son was in the military, thus benefiting from his services and labor; that the father and son, acting together, caused not only material damage but also the violation of the plaintiff’s personal rights; that it was not possible to isolate the actions of one from those of the other; and that, according to the nature of the dispute and the provisions of the law of obligations regarding torts applicable to this specific case, the defendant V…. was deemed liable. Therefore, it was unanimously decided that the court’s decision, which was found to be in accordance with procedure and law, should be upheld on this ground as well. For the reasons explained above and consequently, the court’s decision to hold both the plaintiff’s common-law spouse and his father jointly and severally liable for the claims for jewelry, moral damages, and material damages for work performed, does not contain any legal irregularity or inaccuracy; the dissenting decision, which is in accordance with procedure and law, should be upheld. CONCLUSION: The appeal of the defendant’s attorney is rejected, and the dissenting decision is UPHELD for the reasons stated above, with regard to the jewelry, by a majority vote in the first hearing on February 24, 2010, and with regard to moral damages and material damages for work, by a unanimous vote in the second hearing on March 3, 2010.