Post by account_disabled on Mar 10, 2024 5:19:10 GMT -5
The family's only property, if unoccupied, may be seized to pay debts. The understanding was adopted by the rd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice, when rejecting an appeal that sought to remove the attachment on the apartment belonging to him and his wife. The appeal's rapporteur, minister Sidnei Beneti, considered that the property could not be seized due to Law ,/, which prevents the seizure of family assets. But the majority of the Panel followed Minister Nancy Andrighi's dissenting vote and recognized the apartment's seizure status.
According to the minister, the fact that a family does not use its only property as a residence does not automatically eliminate the protection of Law ,/ The STJ has already decided, in other judgments, that, even if it is not the Austria Phone Numbers List family's residence, the property cannot be seized if it serves the family's subsistence — for example, if it is rented to supplement the family income.
In the case of São Paulo, however, it was found during the process that the apartment was empty. It had been seized due to a debt resulting from non-compliance with a court-approved agreement. The debtor's husband filed third-party embargoes in the enforcement action. He claimed it was a family asset, impossible to seize. The judge of first instance accepted his request and removed the attachment.
At the São Paulo Court of Justice, the situation was reversed in favor of the creditor. The São Paulo judges considered that the seizure occurred when the property was not used as the couple's residence. The fact that the apartment was not occupied was verified by an expert, whose photographs are part of the file.
When analyzing the appeal against the decision of the São Paulo Court, Minister Nancy Andrighi stated that “the STJ's jurisprudence on the subject was established considering the need to use the property for the benefit of the family, such as, for example, leasing to guarantee the subsistence of the family entity or the payment of debts”.
She noted, however, that in the case under trial there was no such particularity: “The appellant's apartment is uninhabited and, therefore, does not meet the objective of Law ,/, of guaranteeing family housing or the family's subsistence.” According to the minister, it was the appellant's responsibility to prove that the apartment fell within the concept of family property, but this did not happen. With information from the STJ Press Office.
According to the minister, the fact that a family does not use its only property as a residence does not automatically eliminate the protection of Law ,/ The STJ has already decided, in other judgments, that, even if it is not the Austria Phone Numbers List family's residence, the property cannot be seized if it serves the family's subsistence — for example, if it is rented to supplement the family income.
In the case of São Paulo, however, it was found during the process that the apartment was empty. It had been seized due to a debt resulting from non-compliance with a court-approved agreement. The debtor's husband filed third-party embargoes in the enforcement action. He claimed it was a family asset, impossible to seize. The judge of first instance accepted his request and removed the attachment.
At the São Paulo Court of Justice, the situation was reversed in favor of the creditor. The São Paulo judges considered that the seizure occurred when the property was not used as the couple's residence. The fact that the apartment was not occupied was verified by an expert, whose photographs are part of the file.
When analyzing the appeal against the decision of the São Paulo Court, Minister Nancy Andrighi stated that “the STJ's jurisprudence on the subject was established considering the need to use the property for the benefit of the family, such as, for example, leasing to guarantee the subsistence of the family entity or the payment of debts”.
She noted, however, that in the case under trial there was no such particularity: “The appellant's apartment is uninhabited and, therefore, does not meet the objective of Law ,/, of guaranteeing family housing or the family's subsistence.” According to the minister, it was the appellant's responsibility to prove that the apartment fell within the concept of family property, but this did not happen. With information from the STJ Press Office.