In a recent case, our Real Estate Law team was successful in applying Theme 677 of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), ensuring full compensation for a developer and construction company that had been harmed by a systemic failure at Caixa Econômica Federal (CEF).
From Initial Case to the Lawsuit
The company, a client of our firm, had entered into a contract for the purchase and sale of a real estate unit with a third party buyer, who chose to finance the property through Caixa. Although the financing contract was duly signed and registered in the property’s registry, CEF failed to process the contract due to a fault in its system, which resulted in the amount not being passed on to the developer.
In view of this scenario, an enforcement action was filed against CEF, seeking payment of the amount owed. As a form of defense, a motion to stay the execution was filed, with a deposit as a guarantee of the Court in order to grant the motion to stay suspensive effect (art. 919, § 1 of the CPC). The granting of suspensive effect prevented the developer from withdrawing the amounts deposited as security.
Filing an interlocutory appeal
In order to reverse this situation, our team filed an interlocutory appeal and was successful in overturning the suspensive effect previously granted. The court recognized the relevance of the measure and authorized the withdrawal of the amounts deposited. However, this occurred 14 months after the deposit, during which time the amount remained unavailable by court decision, causing obvious damage to the creditor.
The Application of STJ Theme 677
In view of this prejudice, we request the application of Theme 677 of the STJ, whose established thesis states that:
“The judicial depositary is objectively liable for not making the amounts deposited in court available to the winning party, and should be compensated for the difference resulting from the devaluation of the currency in the period.”
Guaranteeing the rights of the developer
Based on this understanding, CEF was ordered to pay the difference between the amount owed at the time of the withdrawal and the amount originally deposited and withdrawn, with due monetary restatement for the period of unavailability.
The court granted the request and ordered payment of the difference. CEF fully complied with the decision, making the additional deposit and thus putting an end to the financial loss experienced by the developer as a result of the delay in withdrawing the funds.
The Impact of the Decision
The case reinforces the importance of the jurisprudence of the higher courts in protecting the rights of parties involved in complex disputes, especially when there are procedural or systemic flaws that prevent the fulfillment of contractual obligations. More than just a technical victory, the result shows our commitment to finding effective solutions and defending our clients’ interests, ensuring legal certainty and full compensation for the damage suffered.
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.
