Security Deposit Cannot Be Reclaimed
Republic of Turkey Supreme Court of Appeals
13th Civil Chamber Case No: 2014/19529
Decision No: 2014/20906 Date of Decision: 24.06.2014 SUPREME COURT DECISION
COURT: Şereflikoçhisar 1st Civil Court of First Instance
DATE: 01/29/2013
NUMBER: 2011/180-2013/76
Following the trial of the claim for payment between the parties, the judgment was rendered partially in favor of the plaintiff and partially against the plaintiff for the reasons stated in the judgment. Upon appeal by the defendants’ attorney within the time limit, the case file was reviewed and deliberated upon.
DECISION
The plaintiff gave the defendant father 6,000.00 TL as a security deposit, gold worth 6,000.00 TL, and clothing worth 3,500.00 TL
and delivered, that the defendant N. and her son were married, but that the defendant Y.. A.. did not perform an official marriage ceremony, that when they requested an official marriage ceremony, the defendant’s daughter received alimony from her divorced husband and that the defendant
and took her away, and that the defendants unjustly caused him a loss of 15,500.00 TL, requesting that the defendants be ordered to pay 15,500 TL and that the court costs be borne by the defendants.
The defendants requested that the case be dismissed.
The defendants requested that the case be dismissed.
The court partially accepted the case, ruled that 5,000 TL be collected from the defendants and given to the plaintiff, and dismissed the claim for the excess amount; the defendants appealed the ruling.
In addition to his other claims, the plaintiff claimed that he had given the defendant Yaşar 5,000.00 TL as a security deposit (dowry) in order to marry his son to the other defendant, Nurgül, who is the daughter of the defendant Yaşar, and requested the return of this amount.
The court ruled that “…the plaintiff’s son and the defendant N.. A.. began living together without a formal marriage with the intention of marrying, that clothing and jewelry were purchased by the plaintiff for the defendant as a wedding gift before the parties began living together,
and that the jewelry and gold purchased as a wedding gift belonged to the woman, and therefore decided to reject the claim regarding the price of these items. Although the plaintiff stated that he gave the defendants 6,000
TL as security money to the defendants, there is no written document proving that 6,000 TL was given, and considering that the defendants admitted that 5,000 TL was given and the witnesses also stated that 5,000 TL was given by the plaintiff,
it was accepted that the plaintiff gave 5,000 TL as security money to the defendants. From the file, it is understood that the money given by the plaintiff
to the defendants was given as a security deposit.
The witnesses also stated that the plaintiff gave the defendant Yaşar 5,000
TL as a security deposit. The defendants also acknowledged that the plaintiff gave them 5,000 TL as a security deposit. As a rule, a person’s
freedom of action is limited by the law and general moral rules. The penalty for exceeding or affecting contractual freedom in violation of the law is set out in Articles 19 and 20 of the Civil Code, and such an agreement is deemed invalid. A person’s right to marry whomever they choose, within the limits prescribed by law,
is a fundamental right and freedom. Since the security deposit received by the girl’s father in exchange for consenting to the marriage, or the property or money received under the name of a dowry, would be unlawful within these limits,
the agreement and commitments providing for this should also be deemed null and void. For these reasons, it was necessary to decide on the return of the 5,000 TL taken as security money to the plaintiff…” With these reasons,
the plaintiff’s other claims were rejected, but the claim regarding the security deposit intended to secure the marriage in question was accepted. The Civil Code stipulates that marriage must be based on the mutual and free will of the parties within the framework of the principles it sets forth.
There is no provision in the Civil Code or other laws allowing for the payment of a security deposit (dowry) for the purpose of securing a marriage.
It is clear that money paid under this name is contrary to public morality and public order. Money paid in violation of public morality and public order constitutes a deficiency in debt
and cannot be claimed through litigation. In this case, the court should have dismissed the case entirely on the grounds stated, but instead, it rendered a written decision based on an erroneous assessment without considering this matter,
which is contrary to procedure and law and requires reversal.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons explained above, it was unanimously decided on 6/24/2014 to REVERSE the appealed decision in favor of the defendants and to refund the 85.40 TL fee collected in advance upon request.