June 2026

Court upholds conviction of financial institution for scam involving misuse of data

The Third Appellate Panel of the Court of Justice of the Federal District and Territories upheld the conviction of a financial institution to compensate for losses suffered by a consumer who was the victim of a scam carried out by third parties through the improper use of her personal data. The decision recognized that the fraudsters had detailed information about the loan transaction contracted by the victim and made contact using a telephone number identical to the one disclosed by the financial institution itself, circumstances that gave credibility to the fraud and induced the consumer to make the payments.

In the appeal, the financial institution argued the absence of liability for the losses borne by the plaintiff, claiming it was the exclusive action of third parties. However, the panel understood that the fraud was only made possible because the scammers had access to the consumer’s personal and contractual information, which allowed the elaboration of a highly convincing scam. Given this context, the Court concluded that there was a failure in the provision of the service.

The Appellate Panel highlighted that consumers’ data are protected by confidentiality and must be adequately safeguarded by financial institutions. Thus, once the improper use of this information by third parties to commit fraud was verified, the institution’s liability for the damages borne by the consumer was characterized. The appeal was partially heard and, in the analyzed part, was denied, with the conviction imposed in the first instance remaining fully maintained. Continue reading…

STJ assigns appeals and suspends lawsuits involving short-term lodging in condominiums

The Superior Court of Justice (STJ) assigned Special Appeals No. 2,272,536/SP and No. 2,272,537/SC to the repetitive appeals rite to define an issue that has generated growing debate in residential condominiums: the possibility of renting properties for short seasons through digital platforms, when the condominium convention provides that the units have an exclusively residential purpose. Until the final judgment of the matter, the suspension of lawsuits discussing the controversy was ordered throughout the national territory.

The appeals originated from demands involving conflicts between owners and condominiums regarding the use of properties for short-term lodging brokered by digital platforms. The main discussion consists of defining whether the simple provision of residential use in the condominium convention would be sufficient to prevent this type of lease or if the existence of an express prohibition approved by the condominium owners would be necessary.

Upon analyzing the cases, the Second Section of the STJ concluded that the matter has a relevant potential for repetition and impact on numerous ongoing lawsuits in the country. For this reason, it decided to submit it to the repetitive appeals rite, delimiting the following controversy: to define whether the residential destination clause provided in a condominium convention is sufficient to prevent the lease of autonomous units for a short period, through digital platforms, regardless of the existence of an express prohibition.

The future decision should establish the limits of the use of residential properties for short-season rentals in condominiums and will serve as mandatory guidance for lower courts, providing greater legal certainty to owners, tenants, and condominium administrations. REsps 2.272.536 and 2.272.537

STJ: Conversion of obligation to do into damages is not extra petita

The Second Panel of the Superior Court of Justice decided that the conversion of an obligation to do into compensation for damages does not constitute an extra petita judgment when the cause of action and the objective originally sought by the plaintiff are preserved. The understanding was applied in a lawsuit filed by a mother seeking to ensure adequate medical treatment for her son, given the absence of a compatible vacancy in the public healthcare network. After the family paid for the patient’s hospitalization in a specialized clinic, the State failed to comply with a court decision ordering it to fund the treatment. Faced with the impossibility of continuing to bear the expenses, the conversion of the obligation into compensation corresponding to the disbursed amounts was requested.

In the appeal, the public entity argued that the conviction to reimburse would exceed the limits of the initial request, since the lawsuit’s object was the provision of medical treatment and not the payment of compensation. The thesis, however, was rejected by the panel. According to the rapporteur, Minister Maria Thereza de Assis Moura, although the Civil Procedure Code forbids decisions beyond the limits of the lawsuit, the STJ’s jurisprudence admits the adoption of measures capable of guaranteeing the effectiveness of the judicially recognized right, especially when the originally requested relief proves unfeasible or ineffective.

By maintaining the conviction, the Panel highlighted that the purpose of the lawsuit was always to ensure the patient’s access to the necessary health treatment, with the compensation being a mere consequence of the breach of the obligation imposed on the Public Power, concluding that the conversion of the obligation to do into damages did not alter the object of the lawsuit nor introduce a measure foreign to the initial request, with no extra petita judgment existing. Continue reading…

STJ judges attachment of family property for debt with a homeowners’ association

The Second Section of the Superior Court of Justice initiated the judgment of repetitive appeals that will discuss whether debts arising from fees and contributions charged by homeowners’ associations in controlled-access subdivisions have a personal or propter rem nature, an issue that will directly influence the possibility of attaching the family property to satisfy these debts, registered as Repetitive Theme 1,183, which will define the legal treatment applicable to collections made by associations responsible for the maintenance and security of these developments.

In a previously presented vote, the rapporteur, Summoned Appellate Judge Carlos Cini Marchionatti, argued that such contributions have a personal nature and cannot be equated with typical condominium expenses. With this, he concluded that these debts would not fall within the legal hypotheses that authorize the waiver of the unattachability of the family property.

Upon presenting a review vote, Minister Raul Araújo proposed an intermediate solution. According to his understanding, contributions constituted before the validity of Law No. 13,465/2017 have a personal nature and do not authorize the attachment of the residential property. However, for obligations subsequent to said legislation, it would be possible to recognize a propter rem nature, provided that the association’s bylaws or the constitutive act of the obligation is regularly registered in the property’s real estate record, or there is valid adherence by previous owners. In these hypotheses, the debt would follow the property and could justify the incidence of the legal exception to unattachability.

The judgment was suspended after a request for review by Minister Isabel Gallotti, and there is still no final definition on the thesis to be established. The future decision should guide all courts in the country on the possibility of attaching family property to satisfy debts linked to homeowners’ associations in controlled-access subdivisions. REsp 1.995.213 and REsp 2.023.451

 

STJ: Subcontractor is strictly liable in cargo transportation

The Third Panel of the Superior Court of Justice, upon judging REsp No. 2,236,189, decided that the strict liability provided for in Law No. 11,442/2007 also applies to the relationship between the main carrier and the company subcontracted to execute the freight. The panel, unanimously, denied the special appeal, recognizing that the subcontracted carrier is strictly liable to the carrier that contracted it.

The controversy originated in a road cargo transportation contract in which the main carrier subcontracted another company to execute the freight. The discussion submitted to the STJ consisted of defining whether the strict liability provided for in the specific cargo transportation legislation would be limited to the relationship between the carrier and the cargo owner or if it would also reach the legal relationship formed between the main carrier and the subcontractor.

According to the rapporteur, Minister Ricardo Villas Bôas Cueva, Article 7 of Law No. 11,442/2007 does not restrict the strict liability of the contracted or subcontracted carrier to the relationship with the cargo owner. The legal provision foresees liability towards the contracting party, an expression that also covers the main carrier when it acts as the contracting party in the relationship established with the subcontractor.

The reporting judge highlighted that, in this hypothesis, there is a succession of contracts: the first signed between the cargo owner and the main carrier, and the second signed between the main carrier and the subcontracted carrier. Thus, barring express provision to the contrary, the subcontract preserves the nature of the original relationship, causing the strict liability legally imposed on the road cargo carrier to apply.

The decision reinforces the understanding that the strict liability provided for in Law No. 11,442/2007 is not limited to the direct relationship with the cargo owner, also reaching the subcontracted carrier before the main carrier. With this, the STJ consolidates the interpretation that, in road cargo transportation contracts with subcontracting, the subcontractor assumes strict liability for damages resulting from the execution of the freight. Continue reading…

STJ: Heirs can demand an accounting from an attorney-in-fact

The Third Panel of the Superior Court of Justice, upon judging REsp No. 2,259,897, decided that the right to demand an accounting from an attorney-in-fact is transmitted to the heirs upon the principal’s death. The panel granted the special appeal to restore the case-management decision and determine the regular continuation of the action to demand an accounting.

The controversy originated in an action to demand an accounting filed by heirs against a person who had acted on behalf of the deceased through a power of attorney. The discussion submitted to the STJ consisted of defining whether, after the principal’s death, the heirs would have standing to demand the rendering of accounts from the attorney-in-fact regarding the acts practiced during the validity of the mandate.

According to the reporting judge, Minister Nancy Andrighi, the right to demand an accounting is part of the principal’s legal heritage and, therefore, is transmitted to the heirs with the opening of the succession. The reporting judge highlighted the application of the saisine principle, according to which the inheritance is immediately transmitted to the heirs at the moment of death, covering not only assets but also rights and claims of a patrimonial nature.

In the specific case, it was understood that the heirs could continue the claim to demand an accounting from the attorney-in-fact, since the principal’s death does not extinguish the duty to render accounts related to the acts practiced in their name. Thus, the case-management decision was restored, with the determination to proceed with the action to ascertain the accounts due.

The decision reinforces the understanding that the obligation to render accounts arising from the mandate does not automatically end with the principal’s death when there is a patrimonial interest transmissible to the successors. With this, the STJ consolidates the possibility of heirs demanding an accounting from an attorney-in-fact, based on the saisine principle and the transmissibility of the deceased’s patrimonial rights. Continue reading…