Legal Department
Case No.: 2020/1780
Decision No.: 2020/2680
“Judgment Text”
COURT: Family Court
CASE TYPE: Jewelry Damage Case
The plaintiff woman appealed the decision rendered by the local court in the case between the parties specified above by date and number; the document was read, and the necessary matters were discussed:
The case concerns a claim for jewelry, and while the plaintiff woman alleges that the jewelry in question was taken by the defendant, the defendant husband argues that the jewelry was taken by the woman. Based on life experience, it is common for such items to be in the woman’s possession or stored at home. In other words, leaving these items under the defendant’s ownership and custody does not align with the normal course of events.
.
On the other hand, jewelry is among the items that can be easily hidden, moved, and taken away. Therefore, it is always possible for a woman planning to leave the home to take these items with her beforehand, keep them safe, and carry them with her when leaving. Consequently, under normal circumstances, it must be presumed that the jewelry is in the woman’s possession. The burden of proof to the contrary rests with the plaintiff.
In the specific case, the plaintiff woman called a witness to prove her claim. One of the plaintiff’s witnesses, Sevilay Gündoğdu, stated that she was the defendant’s neighbor and that the defendant had claimed her jewelry was taken from the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s witness’s statements are based not on what she heard from the plaintiff, but on the defendant’s own statements. Under these circumstances, considering that the plaintiff has proven her claim and taking into account the expert reports in the case file, it is deemed that the case should have been accepted regarding the jewelry in question, which was both claimed and proven to exist; that the written dismissal of the case based on an erroneous assessment was incorrect; and that the decision must be reversed.
CONCLUSION:
For the reasons stated above, it was unanimously decided to overturn the appealed decision, to refund the appeal fee upon request within 15 days of the notification of this decision, and to leave the option for correction open. June 8, 2020 (Monday)