In a recent decision (REsp n. 1.677.144-RS.), the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) broadened its understanding of the unseizability of amounts deposited in checking accounts and other financial investments.
The case in question brought up a crucial discussion on the interpretation of article 833, X, of the Code of Civil Procedure, which specifies the unseizability of the amount of up to 40 minimum wages.
The literal wording of this article states that the amount of up to 40 minimum salaries deposited exclusively in savings accounts is absolutely unseizable.
With the judgment of Special Appeal No. 1.677.144-RS, the unseizability of the amount of up to 40 minimum salaries can be extended to other assets, such as checking accounts or other financial investments, provided that it is proven that the amount is a reserve of assets intended to ensure the minimum existential.
This understanding, in addition to considering the quantitative aspect, extends to the qualitative, covering not only the issue of subsistence, but also the preservation of the debtor’s dignity and quality of life.
Considering the need for the Law to adapt to social and economic changes, the judgment in Special Appeal 1.677.144-RS sets a significant milestone by recognizing the possibility of extending impenetrability to other types of financial investments, provided that the requirements for their qualification as a reserve of assets aimed at guaranteeing the minimum necessary are demonstrated, thus ensuring the effectiveness of fundamental rights today.
We are attentive to new legislation and case law in order to provide our clients with appropriate and effective advice.
