An interesting jewelry dispute took place in Kayseri. A citizen who wore a gold coin at a relative's wedding initiated enforcement action and recovered the gold he was wearing when he did not bring a gold coin at his own wedding.
A citizen in Kayseri initiated enforcement proceedings and recovered the gold when the precious gold he wore at a relative's wedding was not returned at his own wedding.
The people, who collected the current gold price through coercive procedures, started a new discussion on the “jewelry law.”
Wedding jewelry, which is considered a “debt” or “gift” in Turkish tradition, has gone to court this time.
Jewelry worn at weddings or circumcisions is often worn and returned to the wearer on their important days. However, there are no examples of enforcement proceedings being initiated where jewelery was not worn.
IT'S A PERSONAL MATTER AND START DOING IT
In an interesting incident that happened in Kayseri, a resident attended a relative's wedding many years ago wearing a gold coin. However, when the day of her own wedding arrived, she realized that the relative had neither attended the wedding nor sent any jewelry.
Turning the situation from a personal matter to a legal process, the citizen initiated enforcement proceedings through the Kayseri General Enforcement Office, arguing that the gold found was essentially a “grant based on reciprocity.” In an enforcement payment order, previously deposited gold is required to be returned based on its current market value.
He won the execution because no objections were made
The most important detail that attracts attention during the proceedings is the decision of the other party. When the relative notified of the enforcement proceedings does not object to the proceedings within the legal time limit, the debt has been settled. So his reaction to this situation remains. The result of this decision was that the receivable became final receivable and the enforcement agency collected the price of gold from the debtor and paid it to the rightful owner.
Experts have two different views on the legal nature of wedding jewelry. Some lawyers argue that the jewelry is a gift and cannot be reclaimed. According to another point of view, jewelry is a social debt that “must be repaid.” However, in this case, failure to object to enforcement proceedings resulted in the gold being returned. In this initiative, the main reason for the successful conclusion of the enforcement process is considered to be the debtor's failure to object to the payment order. If there is an objection, the case will be brought to the civil court for mediation and will discuss whether the property is a gift or a loan and the court will decide.
