Is The Husband’s Father Liable For Damages In A Lawsuit Filed After A Marriage Lived Without A Formal Marriage?
Summary:
Regarding claims for moral damages and material damages in lieu of work, the quorum for a decision was not reached at the first hearing; at the second hearing, it was determined that the other defendant, Hasan’s father Veysel, played a role in the plaintiff’s cohabitation with his son, who was young and economically dependent, that he was aware that holding a wedding without a legal marriage was unlawful and its consequences, and that he himself acted unlawfully by acting together with his son H… from the beginning of this relationship and by being his son’s supporter and encourager in this informal cohabitation; that he failed to prove that he made any effort towards a legal marriage, she kept her son under her control and guidance; she even kept the plaintiff in her home and employed her while her son was in the military, benefiting from her services and labor, thus necessitating the acknowledgment of her wrongful act; the father and son, acting together, caused not only material damage to the plaintiff but also violated her personal rights; it is not possible to separate the actions of one from the other; Given the nature of the dispute and the provisions of the law of obligations applicable to the wrongful act in this specific case, it was concluded that the defendant V… must be held liable. It was unanimously decided that the court’s decision, which was found to be in accordance with the procedure and the law, should be upheld in this respect.
T.C.
Court of Cassation
General Assembly of Civil Law
Case No: 2010/88
Decision No: 2010/126
Date: 24.2.2010
Following the trial concerning the “material and moral damages” case between the parties, upon the request of the parties’ attorneys to review the decision dated 10.06.2008 and numbered 2007/263 E.-2009/202 K. issued by the Kütahya 2nd Civil Court of First Instance partially accepting the case, The Supreme Court of Appeals, 4th Civil Chamber, in its decision dated May 25, 2009, numbered 2008/11629 E.-2009/7023 K., ruled as follows:
(…1-Based on the documents in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, the compelling reasons required by law, and in particular 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 claims for material and moral damages from the unmarried spouse and his father due to separation after a marriage that took place without a formal marriage ceremony. The local court accepted part of the claim; the decision was appealed by the parties.
Defendant V… Y…. is the father of the other defendant, who lived with the plaintiff without a formal marriage. The three-year marriage between the plaintiff and the common-law spouse ended when the plaintiff left the home due to disagreements. In the lawsuit filed thereafter, material and moral damages were sought, along with the jewelry left in the home. The plaintiff named the other defendant, who was the unmarried spouse, and his father, V… Y…, as defendants. Since there is no reason to hold the defendant father liable for his son’s actions, the case against him must be dismissed. Since the local court did not address this aspect and ruled on his liability together with the other defendant based on an unfounded written justification, the decision is not in accordance with the procedure and the law, and therefore the decision must be overturned…
For the reasons stated in paragraph (2) above, the appealed decision is overturned in favor of the defendant V… Y…; the appeals of the plaintiff and the defendant H. H… Y… are dismissed for the reasons stated in the first paragraph, and the case is remanded for a new trial.
APPELLANT: Defendant’s attorney
DECISION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
After the General Assembly of the Court of Appeals reviewed the case and determined that the appeal was filed within the time limit for the decision to resist, and after reading the documents in the file, the following was discussed:
The case concerns a claim for material and moral damages based on a separation following a marriage without a formal marriage ceremony; the dispute has been directed at both the unmarried spouse and his father, with a claim of joint liability.
The plaintiff’s representative stated that the plaintiff had been deceived by the defendants for 3 years into believing that a formal marriage had taken place, and that when she requested that the marriage be performed, she was kicked out of the house, and that the value of the 5 gıramise, 2 cumhuriyet gold coins, and 2 Adana burgu bracelets left in the house was 2,750 YTL; 3,250.00 YTL for his contribution by working with the defendants for three years; 10,000.00 YTL for the loss of her virginity and the loss of the chance to have a good marriage, and 15,000.00 YTL in moral damages for the pain and suffering she endured, to be collected jointly and severally from the defendants.
The defendants’ attorney stated that it was true that the parties had married without a marriage contract, but that there was no basis for the other claims, that a formal marriage could not be performed for various reasons, that shortly after the marriage, the defendant H…. H… Y… went to military service, and that upon his return from military service, this time the plaintiff left the house, that she was not kicked out of the house as alleged, that the gold was not sold, they are still in the possession of the client, but the bracelets in their possession are thin twisted bracelets, and they are ready to pay when requested. It was requested that the case against the common-law spouse be dismissed on its merits and the case against the father be dismissed on the grounds of hostility.
In his signed statement at the hearing, the defendant Veysel stated that the gold remaining with them consisted of 4 large gremise gold coins, 2 half gold coins, and 2 double twisted bracelets, that there was nothing else, and that he was ready to return them as is. The plaintiff’s attorney stated that they had no objection to the defendant’s statement.
The court ruled that 4 large gold coins referred to as gramise, 2 half gold coins, and 2 double-twisted bracelets should be taken from the defendants and returned to the plaintiff in kind, that 3,000.00 YTL in moral damages should be collected jointly and severally from the defendants and paid to the plaintiff, The claim for material damages in the amount of 3,250.00 YTL in exchange for work was accepted in full and ordered to be collected jointly and severally from the defendants and paid to the plaintiff. The claim for material damages due to loss of virginity and loss of the chance to have a good marriage, as well as other excessive claims, were rejected.
Upon appeal by the parties’ attorneys, the Special Chamber rejected all appeals by the plaintiff’s attorney and the defendant’s common-law spouse; however, 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 decision to uphold its previous ruling.
The initial decision rendered by the Court became final with regard to the liability of the defendant common-law spouse, and the dispute brought before the General Assembly of the Court of Appeals through the appeal process centers on whether the father of the defendant common-law spouse bears legal liability and whether the Court’s initial decision included an explicit assessment regarding this defendant.
First, it is useful to present the evidence relevant to the dispute and the specific circumstances of the case:
In the specific case, the plaintiff woman was born on August 15, 1984, and the defendant H…. H…. was born on April 17, 1983. On June 20, 2002, they entered into an informal union by holding a wedding ceremony with the knowledge and encouragement of the other defendant, the father; they did not have a formal marriage. After the wedding, they did not move into an independent home but lived together with the other defendant (H…’s father) V… in the same house for approximately 3 years. The defendant H…. H…. performed his military service for approximately 15 months between December 1, 2003, and March 1, 2005, 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 the home where she lived.
It should be emphasized that this informal relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant H…. does not constitute a marriage within the meaning of the Civil Code and is not legally valid; nor does it give rise to a family law relationship between the parties. Therefore, the relationship between the parties must be assessed according to the rules of the law of obligations, in particular the provisions relating to tort, rather than according to the principles of family law.
The court accepted the existence of the wrongful act committed by the defendant H… H…. and this aspect became final without being subject to appeal. The question of whether the other defendant, who is the father of the defendant Hasan, is jointly and severally liable with his son was also resolved within the framework of the rules of the law of obligations. During the deliberations of the General Assembly of the Court of Appeals, the liability of the defendant V…. was discussed and voted on separately with regard to jewelry and other claims.
Regarding the claim for material compensation for jewelry:
Defendant V…, in a signed and explicit statement of acceptance recorded in the minutes of the hearing dated 19.03.2008, stated, “We have no bracelets other than the four large gold bracelets known as ‘gremise’, two half gold bracelets, and two double-twisted bracelets that we wore, and I am ready to return them,” the defendant V… has accepted personal responsibility, and the plaintiff has not objected to this statement. In light of this clear acceptance, this matter was decided by majority vote at the first hearing, and the majority opinion accepted that the defendant Veysel was responsible for returning the jewelry mentioned in the statement and that the local court’s decision in this regard was correct and should be upheld.
Regarding the plaintiff’s other claims:
Regarding the claims for moral damages and material damages in return for work, the quorum for a decision was not reached at the first hearing; at the second hearing, it was accepted that the other defendant, Hasan’s father, Veysel, played a role in the plaintiff’s cohabitation with his son, who was young and economically dependent, that he was aware that holding a wedding without a legal marriage was unlawful and its consequences, that he had acted unlawfully from the outset of this relationship by acting together with his son H… and by being his son’s supporter and encourager in this unofficial cohabitation, that he failed to prove that he made any effort towards a legal marriage, she kept her son under her control and guidance; she even kept the plaintiff in her home and employed her while her son was in the military, benefiting from her services and labor, thus necessitating the acknowledgment of her wrongful act; the father and son, acting together, caused not only material damage to the plaintiff but also violated her personal rights; it is not possible to separate the actions of one from the other; Based on the nature of the dispute as explained and the provisions of the law of obligations applicable to the wrongful act in this specific case, it was concluded that the defendant V… must be held liable. It was unanimously decided that the court’s decision, which was found to be in accordance with the procedure and the law, should be upheld in this respect.
For the reasons explained above and as a result; the court ruled that the defendant’s common-law spouse and the common-law spouse’s father were jointly and severally liable for the claims for jewelry, moral damages, and material damages in return for work, on the grounds that they were legally liable. there is no legal inconsistency or inaccuracy in ruling on these requests; the decision to uphold the appeal, which is in accordance with the procedure and the law, must be confirmed.
CONCLUSION: The defendant’s attorney’s appeal was rejected, and the decision to uphold the judgment was affirmed for the reasons stated above, by a majority vote on February 24, 2010, regarding jewelry, and by a unanimous vote on March 3, 2010, regarding moral damages and material damages in return for work.