Part of salary can be garnished to pay late rent, says STJ
Jan 30, 2024 5:50:24 GMT -5
Post by account_disabled on Jan 30, 2024 5:50:24 GMT -5
Part of the debtor's salary can be seized to pay rent, as long as it does not put the livelihood of the debtor and his family at risk. The decision was made by the 3rd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice, which maintained the determination of the Court of Justice of São Paulo that garnished 10% of a man's salary to pay off rent arrears for more than a decade and related charges. The decision was unanimous. After the TJ-SP's decision, the tenant appealed to the Superior Court of Justice alleging the impossibility of garnishing the salary to pay non-food funds. According to him, blocking part of his source of income compromises his existence and that of his family. Given these arguments, the rapporteur, Nancy Andrighi, confirmed that the guarantee of the unseizability of income is a limitation based on the need to preserve the assets essential to the debtor's dignified life.
However, considering in this case the Buy Phone Number List existence of two apparently opposing aspects of the principle of human dignity — the debtor's right to the existential minimum and the creditor's right to executive satisfaction —, the minister pointed out the need to carry out a balancing judgment to that, exceptionally, the unseizability of part of the debtor's salaries may be removed. Nancy Andrighi also highlighted that, by denying the request to unblock the remuneration amount, the São Paulo court understood that there was no other way to settle the debt and, furthermore, concluded that blocking a small percentage of the debtor's remuneration would not compromise his subsistence.
“From this perspective, the rule of unseizability can be relativized when the concrete hypothesis in the case allows part of the remuneration amount to be blocked, preserving enough to guarantee the decent subsistence of the debtor and his family”, concluded the rapporteur by denying granting the appeal.“Since this is the indisputable reality of the facts, it is completely unreasonable to conclude that all members of the defendant side of the present claim were part of the same chain of suppliers and that, for this reason, they should respond, jointly, for the losses incurred by the author ”, highlighted the rapporteur.
However, considering in this case the Buy Phone Number List existence of two apparently opposing aspects of the principle of human dignity — the debtor's right to the existential minimum and the creditor's right to executive satisfaction —, the minister pointed out the need to carry out a balancing judgment to that, exceptionally, the unseizability of part of the debtor's salaries may be removed. Nancy Andrighi also highlighted that, by denying the request to unblock the remuneration amount, the São Paulo court understood that there was no other way to settle the debt and, furthermore, concluded that blocking a small percentage of the debtor's remuneration would not compromise his subsistence.
“From this perspective, the rule of unseizability can be relativized when the concrete hypothesis in the case allows part of the remuneration amount to be blocked, preserving enough to guarantee the decent subsistence of the debtor and his family”, concluded the rapporteur by denying granting the appeal.“Since this is the indisputable reality of the facts, it is completely unreasonable to conclude that all members of the defendant side of the present claim were part of the same chain of suppliers and that, for this reason, they should respond, jointly, for the losses incurred by the author ”, highlighted the rapporteur.