TJ-SP does not recognize fraud in the execution of complianc

[account_disabled]

By not recognizing fraud in the enforcement of an arbitration award, the 1st Chamber of Business Law of the Court of Justice of São Paulo overturned the first degree decision and made a property considered a family asset unseizable.





Ivan Kruk

Ivan Kruk TJ-SP does not recognize fraud in the execution of compliance with an arbitration award

According to the records, in compliance with the arbitration award, the appellant did not have his property considered a family asset and could, therefore, be subject to seizure.



The court of origin considered that Portugal Mobile Number List the appellant was the owner of a second property, which he had sold to make the first apartment unseizable, characterizing execution fraud.



However, for the rapporteur, judge Fortes Barbosa, in an investigation into the presence of the requirements for recognition of execution fraud, it was concluded that the alienation of the rights to the second property was carried out six months before the filing of compliance with the arbitration award.



"Contrary to what was stated in the first instance, execution fraud cannot be recognized, considering that the sales, again, preceded the filing of the execution, making it not viable to fit in with article 792, item IV of the CPC 2015, disregarding the question arising from the comparison between an arbitration procedure and an action, leaving aside the literalness of the legal text and the lack of general publicity in the scope of arbitration", he said.







According to the judge, copies of electricity and telephone bills were also presented, proving that the appellant, in fact, lives with his family in the property in question, in order to corroborate the statements made in the appeal to the TJ-SP.



"In this sense, by application of article 1 of Law 8,009/1990, the proposed unseizability has been implemented, which also encompasses rights of a personal nature, as long as they are capable of allowing the maintenance of a home, providing an existential minimum", he concluded. The decision was unanimous.