Precedent decision from the Supreme Court: Enforcement proceedings can be carried out for gold before the divorce is finalized

The 12th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals ruled that the divorce decision does not need to be finalized in order for the court decision regarding the jewelry receivable to be enforced. With the precedent decision, enforcement proceedings can be carried out even before the divorce is finalized.

The couple, who decided to divorce after years of marriage, also went to court regarding the gold. 1. The aggrieved woman, who was left empty-handed despite the Family Court's decision that she would receive gold (jewelry), initiated enforcement proceedings against her ex-husband. The ex-husband, who ran to the Enforcement Civil Court, objected to the enforcement proceedings, pointing out that the divorce case was not finalized.

He stated that his receivables, which are dependent on him, cannot be claimed before the divorce decree is finalized, and requested that the proceedings be annulled. The Enforcement Civil Court decided to reject the complaint. The plaintiff ex-husband appealed the decision. Regional Court of Justice (BAM) 8th Civil Chamber pointed out that the basis of the legal proceedings initiated against the debtor by the creditor-defendant is the 1st Family Court's order numbered 2025/17 K., and that the return of the jewelery stipulated in the judgment and the collection of the trial expenses and attorney fees ruled on this issue were requested.

Emphasizing that the complaint is subject to indefinite complaint due to its nature, the following statements were made in the Chamber decision: "Provisions regarding family and personal law cannot be subject to follow-up unless they are finalized. In addition, the provisions regarding compensation, attorney fees and litigation expenses, which are additional parts of the divorce decision, are also subject to the same rule. However, the part of the decree regarding the jewelry receivable, which is heard and adjudicated together with the divorce case, is a decree regarding performance that does not cause a change in the personal or family situation of the parties, can only affect the assets of the parties as a result, is not an accessory to the divorce decree and is independent of it. Due to these features, it is possible for the decrees regarding the receivables of ornaments to be executed before they become final, just like the decrees regarding other performance. In the concrete case, the issue that is being pursued is related to the return of jewelry and the court expenses and attorney's fees awarded regarding this issue, and although it was filed together with the divorce case, it is possible for it to be enforced before it becomes final, since it is not an accessory to the divorce decree. Therefore, it is appropriate to decide to reject the plaintiff's request.

The plaintiff husband, who returned empty-handed from the BAM 8th Civil Chamber, appealed the decision. The 12th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals also found the BAM decision appropriate.

Supreme Court; Stating that the jewelry receivables do not cause a change in the personal situations of the parties, they only affect their assets, he approved the decision of the Regional Court of Justice that these receivables can be enforced even if the divorce judgment is not finalized.