Post by account_disabled on Mar 13, 2024 1:37:27 GMT -5
The moment does not favor blocking resources and means of acquiring basic survival inputs for people (individuals or legal entities) who were already experiencing financial difficulties even before the arrival of the epidemic in the country, especially in relation to creditors with greater capacity to face the situation. without risk of failure, like banks.
reproduction
Reproduction Due to Covid-19, TJ-SP denies blocking debtors' credit cards
Based on this understanding, the 14th Private Law Chamber of the São Paulo Court of Justice denied a creditor bank's request to block two credit cards belonging to a group of debtors. The enforcement action has been ongoing for more than seven years and the debt already exceeds R$145,000.
The rapporteur, judge Melo Colombi, acknowledged B2B Lead that it is not correct to allow a scenario like this to persist for so long. “Debtors must seek compliance, if not on their own initiative, as expected from the character of the average man, by force of law. And, so far, this force has not proven effective. Hence why it is necessary, in this case, to adopt atypical coercive measures,” he stated.
He cited article 139, IV, of the CPC, which allows the judge to authorize atypical coercive measures and stated that the duty of cooperation is not obtained, “as it should be in an ideal world”, through “the honorable attitude of the debtor committing himself to fulfill its obligation.” “Unfortunately, only when he is affected in some way in his rights does he understand that he needs to find a way to pay his debt; that he cannot shirk his duties,” he added.
Despite this duty, Colombi stated that atypical coercive measures must be proportionate and reasonable and cannot bring benefit to the creditor, serving only to punish the debtor. Therefore, he considered blocking credit cards to be an appropriate measure that, in theory, would not violate the rights of debtors, who could make their purchases by other means.
“But not without causing them a certain degree of discomfort, reminding them that they have a commitment to settle with their creditor. It would act as an incentive to pay off their debts, without so much recalcitrance, therefore being useful within the scope of the executive process”, said Colombi.
However, for the rapporteur, the epidemic scenario does not recommend the adoption of such a measure. “In view of this panorama, therefore, it is imperative that the aggravated decision be maintained, with the observation that, once the moment of national crisis has passed and the situation of economic normality has resumed, the issue can be reviewed”, he concluded. The decision was unanimous.