Recently, the 3rd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) ruled that it is not possible to collect out of court a debt that is time-barred. However, it held that this statute of limitations does not require the debtor to be removed from the “Serasa Limpa Nome” platform.
In the case analyzed, the debtor filed a lawsuit to declare the debt time-barred and asked for his name to be removed from the “Serasa Limpa Nome” platform.
At first instance, the court dismissed the action, as it held that the statute of limitations only prevented the collection of the time-barred debt. In the second instance, the court rejected the appeal, arguing that the statute of limitations does not prevent extrajudicial collection and that Serasa is a registry that informs of the existence of debts that can be negotiated, not necessarily negatives.
In the Superior Court of Justice, Reporting Justice Nancy Andrighi, when judging the Special Appeal, explained that the STJ had recently ruled on this same matter and that the paralysis of the claim, due to the statute of limitations on the debt, prevents its collection.
In relation to the registration on the “Serasa Limpa Nome” platform, the Justice emphasized: “The statute of limitations on the claim does not imply the obligation to remove the debtor’s name from the Serasa Limpa Nome platform, since mere inclusion does not constitute collection”.
The STJ’s jurisprudential understanding brings legal certainty by confirming that, even after the debt is time-barred, the debt can still be negotiated out of court, unless there is payment or a waiver of the statute of limitations. In this way, debtors will be impacted, as the name will remain on the platform until the debt is paid or waived by the creditor.
We are aware of the latest case law and discussions in all areas of the Judiciary in order to provide our clients with appropriate and effective advice.
