Without registration, separation of assets does not generate effects on third...

sailasathay

For the 3rd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice, the private stable union contract with total separation of assets does not prevent the seizure of assets from one of the cohabitants to pay the debt of the other, as it has effect only between the parties. According to the collegiate, the stable union has no effect on third parties when there is no public record.
Sandy Millar/Unplash
Sandy Millar/Unplash Without registration, a stable union with separation of assets has no effect on third parties
The judging panel unanimously confirmed this understanding by dismissing the special appeal in which a woman contested the seizure of furniture and appliances, which would only be hers, to pay a debt owed by her partner.

She claimed that, before purchasing the items, she had signed a stable union contract with total separation of assets with the debtor. According WhatsApp Number List  to the process, this contract was signed four years before the seizure was granted, but the public registration was carried out only one month before the restriction took effect.

The woman filed a third party's motion to enforce the sentence proposed against her partner, but the ordinary courts considered that the effects of public registration of the stable union would not be retroactive to the date on which signatures were recognized in the contract. However, they protected the plaintiff's right to half the amount resulting from the auction of the goods.



For the rapporteur at the STJ, Minister Nancy Andrighi, what was under discussion was not exactly the non-retroactivity of the effects of the registration of the total separation of assets agreed between the cohabitants, but the scope of the effects produced by the private contract and its subsequent registration.

According to the judge, article 1,725 ​​of the Civil Code established that the existence of a written contract is the only legal requirement for the establishment or modification of the property regime applicable to the stable union, always with future effects.

In this way, the private instrument will be effective a

the stable union, but "it is truly incapable of projecting effects outside the legal relationship maintained by the cohabitants, especially in relation to to third parties, perhaps creditors of one of them", he added.

Regarding the case analyzed, the minister highlighted that the request and approval of the seizure occurred before the registration of the contract with a clause of total separation of assets, which was only done one month before the effective seizure of the appliances, indicating that the registration was an attempt of excluding the supposedly exclusive assets of the partner from the constriction that would be carried out.