![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.cascione.com.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Infos-Contencioso-Header-English.png\")
\n<\/strong><\/h3>\n
May 2026<\/h6>\nSTJ: Airbnb in Condominiums Requires Approval at a General Meeting<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\nThe Second Section of the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (“STJ”<\/strong>), in ruling on Special Appeal No. 2,121,055\/MG, held that offering a unit located in a residential condominium for short-term stays \u2014 through platforms such as Airbnb<\/em> \u2014 requires condominium approval by at least two-thirds of the unit owners, when the activity is characterized as economic or professional exploitation capable of distorting the residential purpose of the unit.<\/p>\nThe dispute originated in an action brought by the owner of an apartment in a residential condominium in the State of Minas Gerais, seeking to secure the right to make her unit available for short-term rentals through digital platforms without prior condominium authorization. The Court of Appeals of the State of Minas Gerais had upheld the restriction, a position that was challenged in the special appeal.<\/p>\n
According to the reporting Justice, Minister Nancy Andrighi, contracts intermediated by short-stay digital platforms do not fit neatly either within standard residential leases or hotel accommodation arrangements, and may constitute atypical contracts. The reporting Justice emphasized that repeated and professional use of such platforms can generate a high turnover of persons, with an impact on the safety, peace, and well-being of other residents.<\/p>\n
In the circumstances of the case, the Court found that, since the condominium was intended for residential use, the frequent use of a unit for short-term stays would constitute a practical alteration of that purpose. As there was no condominium approval by a qualified quorum, the Second Section upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeals of the State of Minas Gerais and dismissed the owner’s appeal.<\/p>\n
The decision harmonizes the STJ’s position on the matter and underscores that the mere use of digital platforms does not, in and of itself, alter the legal characterization of the use of a property; however, the repeated economic exploitation of short-term stays in a residential condominium may require collective authorization, especially when it represents a departure from the building’s residential purpose. Read more\u2026<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<\/h3>\nSTJ Invalidates Retroactive Clause Establishing Separation of Assets in a Stable Union<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\nA recent ruling by the Fourth Panel of the STJ on the impossibility of giving retroactive effect to a total separation of assets regime in a stable union introduced a significant limitation on the scope of the parties’ autonomy over their property arrangements.<\/p>\n
The dispute originated in an action in which the validity of a clause inserted in a stable union agreement establishing a total separation of assets regime with retroactive effect was challenged. The Court of Appeals of the Federal District had upheld the validity of the clause and, on that basis, declined to examine an alleged irregularity in the ownership of assets registered in the name of third parties.<\/p>\n
In ruling on the special appeal, the central question was whether the partners could give retroactive effect to the total separation of assets regime, particularly so as to capture assets acquired prior to the formalization of the agreement. The reporting Justice, Minister Isabel Gallotti, took the position that the clause should be invalidated, noting that the STJ’s case law permits amendments to the property regime only with prospective effect.<\/p>\n
In the circumstances of the case, the Fourth Panel partially upheld the special appeal, invalidating the retroactivity clause and remanding the case for the lower court to examine the allegation of simulation in the acquisition of assets. The re-examination must take place without the impediment arising from the invalidated clause; however, any disposal made to bona fide third parties must be preserved, in which case any loss suffered must be addressed through a claim for damages.<\/p>\n
In this context, the prevailing understanding is that a total separation of assets regime agreed upon in a stable union cannot produce retroactive effects, particularly when used to prevent the investigation of assets accumulated beforehand or of any patrimonial simulation, reaffirming the need to preserve the effects already produced prior to any amendment of the property regime. Read more\u2026<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<\/h3>\nSTJ: Condominium Debts Are Extraconcursal and Are Not Subject to Judicial Reorganization<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\nThe STJ has recently established the understanding that condominium debts are extraconcursal in nature and are therefore not subject to the effects of judicial reorganization. The decision reinforces the protection afforded to residential condominiums and delimits the scope of the stay period<\/em> provided for under Law No. 11,101\/2005.<\/p>\nThe dispute arose from a discussion regarding the possibility of staying enforcement proceedings for condominium assessments against a company undergoing judicial reorganization. The court of origin had recognized that the credit was subject to the reorganization proceedings, on the grounds that the obligation should be included in the class of creditors.<\/p>\n
In ruling on the special appeal, the Court emphasized that condominium assessments are propter rem<\/em> obligations \u2014 that is, they attach to the property itself \u2014 and therefore cannot be equated with ordinary corporate debts subject to a reorganization plan. On that basis, the STJ concluded that the condominium credits at issue are not subject to the effects of judicial reorganization, allowing their collection to proceed independently of the reorganization process, since staying such collections would undermine the maintenance of the condominium and transfer the burden of the default to the other unit owners.<\/p>\nIn this context, the prevailing understanding is that condominium expenses are extraconcursal in nature and may be collected normally, even where the debtor is undergoing judicial reorganization, reaffirming the autonomous nature of propter rem<\/em> obligations and the need to preserve the financial regularity of residential condominiums. Read more\u2026<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n
STJ Upholds Amicable Partition with Unequal Shares Among Heirs<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\nThe STJ recognized the validity of an amicable partition carried out among heirs with the assignment of unequal shares, provided there is consensus among the parties involved and there are no defects of consent or prejudice to third parties. The decision reinforces private autonomy in the realm of succession law and the flexibility of consensual asset division.<\/p>\n
The dispute originated in probate proceedings in which an amicable partition providing for an unequal division of the estate among the successors was approved. Subsequently, the validity of the agreement was challenged on the grounds that it infringed upon the principle of equality among heirs.<\/p>\n
The STJ held that the equality provided for in legal succession is not violated when the heirs, freely and consensually, carry out a different division of the estate, particularly where no legally incapacitated person is involved and there is no conflict between the parties.<\/p>\n
In the circumstances of the case, the Superior Court recognized the validity of the amicable partition, noting that the legal system favors self-composition and the autonomy of will in patrimonial relations. Conversely, any inequality in the division of assets does not automatically render the agreement null, provided the express consent of the heirs is demonstrated, the legal requirements are met, and there are no elements indicating fraud, coercion, or harm to third parties. Read more\u2026<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n
For the Third Panel, a Judicial Deposit in Enforcement Proceedings Does Not Pass to the Universal Court Following the Debtor’s Bankruptcy<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\nThe Third Panel of the STJ, in ruling on Special Appeal No. 2,179,505\/SP, consolidated a significant understanding regarding the effects of a subsequent declaration of bankruptcy on amounts previously deposited in enforcement proceedings as security for the judgment.<\/p>\n
In the circumstances of the case, the defendant company had made a judicial deposit exceeding R$ 200,000.00 to secure a specific enforcement proceeding. At the same time, the debtor filed objections to enforcement, which were dismissed shortly before the declaration of its bankruptcy \u2014 an event that gave rise to the dispute over the allocation of the deposited amounts.<\/p>\n
The court of first instance ordered the transfer of the amount to the universal bankruptcy court, on the grounds that the creditor should file its claim in the insolvency proceedings. The Court of Appeals of the State of S\u00e3o Paulo, however, authorized the creditor to withdraw the funds \u2014 a position subsequently upheld by the STJ.<\/p>\n
In examining the dispute, the reporting Justice, Minister Ricardo Villas B\u00f4as Cueva, emphasized that a judicial deposit made as security for the judgment does not have a discharge effect while there is a dispute regarding the credit, consistent with the consolidated position under Topic 677\/STJ. However, he noted that once the entitlement to collect becomes final and unappealable, the deposit effectively constitutes performance of the obligation.<\/p>\n
In this context, the Third Panel concluded that the universal bankruptcy jurisdiction is only established upon the declaration of insolvency, and does not reach acts of satisfaction of a credit definitively constituted beforehand \u2014 which occurred in this case upon the dismissal of the objections to enforcement. Accordingly, since there was no longer any dispute regarding the amount owed, there were no amounts to be transferred to the insolvency court, and the enforcement court need only complete the necessary expropriatory measures to issue the withdrawal order. Read more\u2026<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n
STJ Rules Out Application of the Consumer Protection Code Between Vehicle Rental Companies and Ride-Hailing Drivers<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\nIn ruling on Special Appeal No. 2,229,091\/RS, the Third Panel of the STJ held that the Consumer Protection Code does not automatically apply to relationships between vehicle rental companies and ride-hailing drivers, also rejecting the possibility of recognizing the collective vulnerability of these professionals.<\/p>\n
In the circumstances of the case, the dispute arose from a class action brought by the Union of Drivers of Individual Private Passenger Transport by App of the State of Rio Grande do Sul against Kovi Tecnologia S.A., challenging an allegedly abusive price increase in vehicle lease agreements.<\/p>\n
The ruling was not unanimous: Minister Ricardo Villas B\u00f4as Cueva led a dissenting position that recognized the structural vulnerability of the drivers and defended the application of the Consumer Protection Code. However, the vote of the reporting Justice, Minister Nancy Andrighi, prevailed, with the emphasis that vehicles serve as work tools \u2014 which, as a rule, precludes the characterization of a consumer relationship.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, as held by the reporting Justice, the application of the attenuated finalistic theory requires concrete proof of the contracting party’s vulnerability, entailing an analysis of the specific circumstances of each contract for the eventual application of consumer protection rules \u2014 such vulnerability cannot be presumed generically in a class action. Read more\u2026<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n<\/h5>\nSign up to our Litigation and Arbitration newsletter<\/h5>\n
The Second Section of the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (“STJ”<\/strong>), in ruling on Special Appeal No. 2,121,055\/MG, held that offering a unit located in a residential condominium for short-term stays \u2014 through platforms such as Airbnb<\/em> \u2014 requires condominium approval by at least two-thirds of the unit owners, when the activity is characterized as economic or professional exploitation capable of distorting the residential purpose of the unit.<\/p>\n The dispute originated in an action brought by the owner of an apartment in a residential condominium in the State of Minas Gerais, seeking to secure the right to make her unit available for short-term rentals through digital platforms without prior condominium authorization. The Court of Appeals of the State of Minas Gerais had upheld the restriction, a position that was challenged in the special appeal.<\/p>\n According to the reporting Justice, Minister Nancy Andrighi, contracts intermediated by short-stay digital platforms do not fit neatly either within standard residential leases or hotel accommodation arrangements, and may constitute atypical contracts. The reporting Justice emphasized that repeated and professional use of such platforms can generate a high turnover of persons, with an impact on the safety, peace, and well-being of other residents.<\/p>\n In the circumstances of the case, the Court found that, since the condominium was intended for residential use, the frequent use of a unit for short-term stays would constitute a practical alteration of that purpose. As there was no condominium approval by a qualified quorum, the Second Section upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeals of the State of Minas Gerais and dismissed the owner’s appeal.<\/p>\n The decision harmonizes the STJ’s position on the matter and underscores that the mere use of digital platforms does not, in and of itself, alter the legal characterization of the use of a property; however, the repeated economic exploitation of short-term stays in a residential condominium may require collective authorization, especially when it represents a departure from the building’s residential purpose. Read more\u2026<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n A recent ruling by the Fourth Panel of the STJ on the impossibility of giving retroactive effect to a total separation of assets regime in a stable union introduced a significant limitation on the scope of the parties’ autonomy over their property arrangements.<\/p>\n The dispute originated in an action in which the validity of a clause inserted in a stable union agreement establishing a total separation of assets regime with retroactive effect was challenged. The Court of Appeals of the Federal District had upheld the validity of the clause and, on that basis, declined to examine an alleged irregularity in the ownership of assets registered in the name of third parties.<\/p>\n In ruling on the special appeal, the central question was whether the partners could give retroactive effect to the total separation of assets regime, particularly so as to capture assets acquired prior to the formalization of the agreement. The reporting Justice, Minister Isabel Gallotti, took the position that the clause should be invalidated, noting that the STJ’s case law permits amendments to the property regime only with prospective effect.<\/p>\n In the circumstances of the case, the Fourth Panel partially upheld the special appeal, invalidating the retroactivity clause and remanding the case for the lower court to examine the allegation of simulation in the acquisition of assets. The re-examination must take place without the impediment arising from the invalidated clause; however, any disposal made to bona fide third parties must be preserved, in which case any loss suffered must be addressed through a claim for damages.<\/p>\n In this context, the prevailing understanding is that a total separation of assets regime agreed upon in a stable union cannot produce retroactive effects, particularly when used to prevent the investigation of assets accumulated beforehand or of any patrimonial simulation, reaffirming the need to preserve the effects already produced prior to any amendment of the property regime. Read more\u2026<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n The STJ has recently established the understanding that condominium debts are extraconcursal in nature and are therefore not subject to the effects of judicial reorganization. The decision reinforces the protection afforded to residential condominiums and delimits the scope of the stay period<\/em> provided for under Law No. 11,101\/2005.<\/p>\n The dispute arose from a discussion regarding the possibility of staying enforcement proceedings for condominium assessments against a company undergoing judicial reorganization. The court of origin had recognized that the credit was subject to the reorganization proceedings, on the grounds that the obligation should be included in the class of creditors.<\/p>\n In ruling on the special appeal, the Court emphasized that condominium assessments are propter rem<\/em> obligations \u2014 that is, they attach to the property itself \u2014 and therefore cannot be equated with ordinary corporate debts subject to a reorganization plan. On that basis, the STJ concluded that the condominium credits at issue are not subject to the effects of judicial reorganization, allowing their collection to proceed independently of the reorganization process, since staying such collections would undermine the maintenance of the condominium and transfer the burden of the default to the other unit owners.<\/p>\n In this context, the prevailing understanding is that condominium expenses are extraconcursal in nature and may be collected normally, even where the debtor is undergoing judicial reorganization, reaffirming the autonomous nature of propter rem<\/em> obligations and the need to preserve the financial regularity of residential condominiums. Read more\u2026<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The STJ recognized the validity of an amicable partition carried out among heirs with the assignment of unequal shares, provided there is consensus among the parties involved and there are no defects of consent or prejudice to third parties. The decision reinforces private autonomy in the realm of succession law and the flexibility of consensual asset division.<\/p>\n The dispute originated in probate proceedings in which an amicable partition providing for an unequal division of the estate among the successors was approved. Subsequently, the validity of the agreement was challenged on the grounds that it infringed upon the principle of equality among heirs.<\/p>\n The STJ held that the equality provided for in legal succession is not violated when the heirs, freely and consensually, carry out a different division of the estate, particularly where no legally incapacitated person is involved and there is no conflict between the parties.<\/p>\n In the circumstances of the case, the Superior Court recognized the validity of the amicable partition, noting that the legal system favors self-composition and the autonomy of will in patrimonial relations. Conversely, any inequality in the division of assets does not automatically render the agreement null, provided the express consent of the heirs is demonstrated, the legal requirements are met, and there are no elements indicating fraud, coercion, or harm to third parties. Read more\u2026<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Third Panel of the STJ, in ruling on Special Appeal No. 2,179,505\/SP, consolidated a significant understanding regarding the effects of a subsequent declaration of bankruptcy on amounts previously deposited in enforcement proceedings as security for the judgment.<\/p>\n In the circumstances of the case, the defendant company had made a judicial deposit exceeding R$ 200,000.00 to secure a specific enforcement proceeding. At the same time, the debtor filed objections to enforcement, which were dismissed shortly before the declaration of its bankruptcy \u2014 an event that gave rise to the dispute over the allocation of the deposited amounts.<\/p>\n The court of first instance ordered the transfer of the amount to the universal bankruptcy court, on the grounds that the creditor should file its claim in the insolvency proceedings. The Court of Appeals of the State of S\u00e3o Paulo, however, authorized the creditor to withdraw the funds \u2014 a position subsequently upheld by the STJ.<\/p>\n In examining the dispute, the reporting Justice, Minister Ricardo Villas B\u00f4as Cueva, emphasized that a judicial deposit made as security for the judgment does not have a discharge effect while there is a dispute regarding the credit, consistent with the consolidated position under Topic 677\/STJ. However, he noted that once the entitlement to collect becomes final and unappealable, the deposit effectively constitutes performance of the obligation.<\/p>\n In this context, the Third Panel concluded that the universal bankruptcy jurisdiction is only established upon the declaration of insolvency, and does not reach acts of satisfaction of a credit definitively constituted beforehand \u2014 which occurred in this case upon the dismissal of the objections to enforcement. Accordingly, since there was no longer any dispute regarding the amount owed, there were no amounts to be transferred to the insolvency court, and the enforcement court need only complete the necessary expropriatory measures to issue the withdrawal order. Read more\u2026<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n In ruling on Special Appeal No. 2,229,091\/RS, the Third Panel of the STJ held that the Consumer Protection Code does not automatically apply to relationships between vehicle rental companies and ride-hailing drivers, also rejecting the possibility of recognizing the collective vulnerability of these professionals.<\/p>\n In the circumstances of the case, the dispute arose from a class action brought by the Union of Drivers of Individual Private Passenger Transport by App of the State of Rio Grande do Sul against Kovi Tecnologia S.A., challenging an allegedly abusive price increase in vehicle lease agreements.<\/p>\n The ruling was not unanimous: Minister Ricardo Villas B\u00f4as Cueva led a dissenting position that recognized the structural vulnerability of the drivers and defended the application of the Consumer Protection Code. However, the vote of the reporting Justice, Minister Nancy Andrighi, prevailed, with the emphasis that vehicles serve as work tools \u2014 which, as a rule, precludes the characterization of a consumer relationship.<\/p>\n Accordingly, as held by the reporting Justice, the application of the attenuated finalistic theory requires concrete proof of the contracting party’s vulnerability, entailing an analysis of the specific circumstances of each contract for the eventual application of consumer protection rules \u2014 such vulnerability cannot be presumed generically in a class action. Read more\u2026<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<\/h3>\n
STJ Invalidates Retroactive Clause Establishing Separation of Assets in a Stable Union<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n
<\/h3>\n
STJ: Condominium Debts Are Extraconcursal and Are Not Subject to Judicial Reorganization<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
STJ Upholds Amicable Partition with Unequal Shares Among Heirs<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
For the Third Panel, a Judicial Deposit in Enforcement Proceedings Does Not Pass to the Universal Court Following the Debtor’s Bankruptcy<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
STJ Rules Out Application of the Consumer Protection Code Between Vehicle Rental Companies and Ride-Hailing Drivers<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
<\/h5>\n
Sign up to our Litigation and Arbitration newsletter<\/h5>\n