In a recent decision, the 3rd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice[1] ruled that all defendants must be notified of the order appointing the expert appraiser of the property being seized, in compliance with Article 465, paragraph 1 of the CPC.
The case in question involved an action for enforcement of an extrajudicial title in which the judge converted the seizure of real estate owned by one of the defendants into an attachment and issued a writ of summons for the appraisal of the assets.
Subsequently, the judge ordered the parties to comment on the appointment of the appraiser, however, the plaintiff filed a petition claiming that it was unnecessary to summon all the defendants, and the request was rejected and, on reconsideration, accepted by the magistrate.
Following an appeal, the Paraná State Court of Justice upheld the decision on the grounds that the diligence would delay the fulfillment of the writ of precatory, so after appealing to the Superior Court of Justice, the Rapporteur of the case, Justice Nancy Andrighi warned that: “The reconsideration, correction or addition of the previous decision, in violation of consumptive preclusion, will entail the invalidation of the change made by the new decisional act”.
The rapporteur concluded that “all the defendants must be notified of the order appointing the expert appraiser of the seized property, in accordance with article 465, paragraph 1, of the CPC, regardless of who owns the seized property.”
Therefore, this decision by the STJ represents a consolidation of the jurisprudential understanding for application in similar cases, so the summoning of all the defendants must be observed under penalty of invalidation of the appointment of the appraiser.
Marcos Martins Advogados is attentive to new developments in case law and discussions in all areas of the Judiciary, in order to provide adequate and effective advice to its clients.
[1] REsp nº 2.022.953
