REsp 2.168.268
In a recent judgment, the 3rd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) dealt with an important controversy regarding the liability of heirs for the debts of the deceased, using as the central instrument a promissory note issued by a company that later went bankrupt.
The case judged by the STJ
The case began after a law firm sought to receive success fees related to a lawsuit in which the parents of a deceased man had qualified as his heirs.
With the judgment recognizing the debt, the court of first instance ordered the seizure of amounts in the parents’ accounts, on the grounds that they had received sufficient assets to meet the obligation in this case, a promissory note registered in the public deed of inventory and partition.
However, the note was never redeemed, and the debtor company is currently in bankruptcy proceedings, which makes the credit difficult or uncertain to recover.
The STJ decision: the importance of effective asset availability
When analyzing the case, the Superior Court of Justice held that the face value of the promissory note was not to be confused with the real assets transferred to the heirs, but was merely an expectation of credit, with a low probability of realization. Dissatisfied, the law firm appealed to the STJ, arguing that the heirs’ liability for the deceased’s debts does not depend on the actual settlement of the note, as its formal existence is enough.
The Rapporteur of the appeal, Justice Ricardo Villas Bôas Cueva pointed out that, under the terms of the Court’s peaceful case law, according to which, it is understood that once the division is closed, the heirs respond proportionally to the part of the inheritance that fell to them, up to the limit of that increase in assets.
“The value indicated in the deed of inventory and partition cannot be given an absolute character, under penalty of imputing responsibility that goes beyond the powers of the inheritance,” said the rapporteur.
STJ case law and succession liability
The justice emphasized that the face value of a promissory note does not in itself represent an increase in the heirs’ assets, especially when the note has not circulated on the market and the debtor is in bankruptcy proceedings.
In addition, he pointed out that the real market value of a credit security is influenced by its liquidity and risk of default, factors that must be weighed up when assessing the economic capacity actually transmitted.
“The real probability of default is taken into account in order to arbitrate the discount rate effectively applied in these securities transactions,” added the rapporteur.
The STJ’s jurisprudence imposes more realistic economic and legal criteria on the valuation of the inheritance, preventing heirs from being held responsible for merely nominal values that do not correspond to concrete benefits.
The application of the principles of succession liability
The decision reinforces the understanding of the liability of heirs for the debts of the deceased, in which the Law of Succession does not allow the automatic liability of heirs based on formal or presumed values. The assessment of inherited assets requires an analysis of the actual economic availability of the assets transferred, especially when it comes to uncertain or illiquid claims.
In this sense, the 3rd Panel of the STJ protected heirs from being liable for obligations that, in practice, would go beyond what was actually inherited, consolidating a technical understanding in line with the fundamental principles of succession liability.
See also:
Doubts and questions?
We are attentive to the latest case law and discussions in all areas of the Judiciary in order to provide adequate and effective advice to our clients.
