Priscilla Folgosi
Lawyer at Marcos Martins Advogados
In a recent judgment handed down by the STJ¹, the 4th Panel held that the unseizability of salaries provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure (art. 833, IV) cannot be relativized in an attempt to settle a debt arising from the collection of rental charges.
In a majority decision, the panel was right to dismiss the creditor’s appeal seeking judicial authorization to seize 30% of the salaries of the guarantors of the lease agreement in an action where unpaid rent was being charged. The panel, by a majority, held that seizing their salaries would threaten the livelihood of the debtors and their families.
The creditor brought the appeal – which has now been upheld – in an eviction action for non-payment combined with rent collection, filed in 1998. The defendants were the guarantors of the contract and were being held responsible for the outstanding debts – which amounted to more than R$ 1 million – due to the lack of assets that could satisfy the obligation.
Following the prevailing opinion, the STJ reaffirmed the position that the unseizability of salaries is absolute (the only exception being the payment of maintenance payments), emphasizing that “salaries and wages are, as a rule, unseizable, especially when they are modest amounts, as is the case here.” However, it also stated that:
[…] this orientation should prevail as a rule. I reserve the possibility of a different solution in a very exceptional situation, including, among others, the case of large amounts, which, although formally labeled as of a maintenance nature, are professional fees of great economic importance, for example, manifestly sufficient to meet the obligation, without causing damage to the maintenance of the debtor and his family, in view of the concrete situation to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
In so deciding, it aligned itself with the prevailing understanding of the Court, safeguarding that salaries and wages have their proper destination, which is to maintain the livelihood of the debtor and his family, as provided by law.
Marcos Martins Advogados is at your disposal to assist you in cases related to the business and corporate environment.
___
¹ STJ. SPECIAL APPEAL: No. 1.701.828 – MG (2017/0256395-9). Rapporteur: Justice Lázaro Guimarães (convening judge of the TRF 5th Region). R.P/Decision: Justice Maria Isabel Gallotti. DJ: 20/11/2018. Available at:<https://ww2.stj.jus.br/processo/revista/documento/mediado/?componente=ITA&sequencial=1752703&num_registro=201702563959&data=20181120&formato=PDF>
Accessed on: 06 Dec. 2018.
