Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
6 min of reading 
0 comments 
TRF1 Guarantees Death Pension to Ex-Partner Who Received Alimony, Even After INSS Denial, and Decision May Benefit Thousands of Cases in the Country.
A recent decision by the 2nd Panel of the Federal Regional Court of the 1st Region confirmed an understanding that may change the fate of thousands of social security cases in Brazil. The Court recognized the right of an ex-partner to a death pension from a former railway worker of the defunct RFFSA, even after the INSS denied the benefit administratively. The central point of the case was the proof that the woman received alimony set by a court until the date of death, which occurred on November 20, 2012.
The case, numbered 0012667-90.2013.4.01.3300, was based on the direct interpretation of Article 76, §2 of Law 8.213/91, which equates the ex-spouse or ex-partner who receives alimony with other dependents for the purposes of death pension. The decision also reaffirmed the responsibility of the Union, under the terms of Law 8.186/91, applicable to railway workers hired before 1969.
The source of the information is IEPREV / TRF1, based on the collegial judgment.
-
The noise law will no longer be in effect at 10 PM starting in June with a new rule valid during the 2026 World Cup.
-
The Chamber opens a debate on driver’s licenses at 16 years old as part of a reform that includes around 270 proposals to change the Brazilian Traffic Code and may redesign rules for licensing, enforcement, and circulation in the country.
-
The new Civil Code could revolutionize marriages in Brazil with “express divorce” and changes that could exclude spouses from inheritance.
-
Banco do Brasil sues famous influencer for million-dollar debt and intensifies debate on delinquency, risks of seizure, and direct impact on Gkay’s credibility.
The Specific Case That Led to the Granting of the Death Pension
The author of the action was an ex-partner of a former railway worker from RFFSA. Even after the end of the relationship, she continued to receive alimony set by court decision, with a direct deduction from the payments of the benefit’s provider.
When the ex-partner passed away on 11/20/2012, she requested the death pension from the INSS, precisely because she still economically depended on him. However, the request was denied administratively, on the grounds that, due to being an ex-partner, there was no automatic dependency.
In light of the denial, she appealed to the Judiciary. In first instance, the court recognized that the existence of court-ordered alimony until the date of death proved economic dependency, categorizing the author as a social security dependent. The case then reached the TRF1, which fully upheld the favorable ruling.
What Law 8.213/91 Says About Ex-Partners and Death Pension
The legal foundation of the decision is found in Article 76, §2 of Law 8.213/91, which explicitly establishes that:
The ex-spouse or ex-partner who receives alimony is equated as a social security dependent for the purpose of granting a death pension.
This means, in practice, that:
- the end of the relationship does not automatically eliminate the right to the benefit;
- what defines the right is the existence of ongoing economic dependency, demonstrated by alimony;
- it does not matter if the separation occurred years ago, as long as the payment was active at the time of death.
The TRF1 made it clear, in its judgment, that economic dependency does not disappear solely because of the termination of the union, when there is a court-ordered alimony in full compliance.
Why the Union Was Also Maintained in the Process
In addition to recognizing the right to a death pension, the decision also confirmed that the Union must remain on the passive side of the action, due to Law 8.186/91, which addresses the supplementation of benefits for former railway workers admitted before 1969.
In this specific case, the provider of the benefit was part of this group, which imposes:
- the responsibility of the INSS for paying the basic benefit;
- the responsibility of the Union for supplementing the amount.
In other words, this is a benefit of both social security and statutory nature, which reinforces the financial and legal significance of the decision.
The Most Common Error of INSS in These Cases
The administrative denial by INSS, according to specialists in Social Security Law, frequently occurs because the agency often adopts a restrictive interpretation of the dependent condition, ignoring:
- previous court rulings on alimony;
- approved agreements in court;
- the continuity of economic dependency after the end of the relationship.
In practice, many insured individuals and ex-partners have their benefits automatically denied, being forced to appeal to the Judiciary to see a right that is already provided by law.
The ruling of TRF1 reinforces that this restrictive interpretation is not legally sustainable when there is documentary proof of dependency.
What Changes Practically With This Decision
Although technically each case has its own analysis, the understanding established by TRF1:
- reinforces legal security for ex-partners and ex-spouses;
- serves as a basis for similar decisions nationwide;
- guides first-instance judges on the correct application of the law;
- pressures the INSS to review its standard of administrative denials.
In practice, thousands of women who:
- receive or received alimony;
- had their death pension request denied;
- gave up out of fear or lack of knowledge,
can now reevaluate their legal situation and file a new action.
The Proof of Economic Dependency Is the Key Point
The decision makes it clear that merely alleging that one received informal financial help is not sufficient. The central point is the existence of court-ordered alimony, with:
- court ruling;
- approved agreement;
- proof of payment up to the date of death.
This documentation is the element that transforms the ex-partner into an equated social security dependent, under the terms of the law.
Without this formal proof, the right may not be recognized.
The Social Impact of the Decision
The TRF1 decision has a direct impact especially on:
- elderly women;
- widows without a new formal bond;
- ex-partners in situations of economic vulnerability;
- dependents of former railway workers and employees linked to special regimes.
In many of these cases, the death pension represents:
- the only source of stable income;
- guarantee of survival;
- access to medications, housing, and food.
The administrative denial by the INSS, in these contexts, often pushes thousands of people into informality, dependence on family assistance, or extreme poverty.
Why This Decision Is Treated as a Relevant Precedent
Although it is not a binding summary, the decision of the 2nd Panel of the TRF1:
- consolidates the understanding on the subject;
- strengthens the protective interpretation of social security law;
- increases predictability of future decisions;
- reduces the margin of automatic denials by the INSS.
In practice, this constitutes a qualified precedent, which is already being cited by social security lawyers in similar actions.
What to Do If You’re in a Similar Situation
Those in a similar situation should, as a rule:
- gather all documentation related to the alimony;
- obtain the death certificate of the ex-partner;
- present proof of payments up to the date of death;
- seek specialized legal guidance.
Even in cases where the request was denied years ago, the Court can still recognize the right, depending on the time and circumstances of the case.
A Direct Message for Those Who Depend on This Type of Benefit
The TRF1 decision leaves a clear message: the end of the union does not automatically extinguish the condition of social security dependent when economic dependency remains formally recognized. The alimony, in these cases, is more than a civil obligation, it becomes a central element for social security protection.
The confirmation of the right to a death pension by the Federal Court, even after an administrative denial by the INSS, exposes a reality that silently affects thousands of people across Brazil.
By recognizing that economic dependency survives the end of a relationship when there is court-ordered alimony, the TRF1 not only applied the law correctly but reaffirmed the role of Social Security as a tool for real — and not just formal — protection of human dignity.
The decision now echoes as a warning: those who financially depended on the ex until his last day of life can also legitimately depend on the social security system after his death.
-
-
-
-
11 pessoas reagiram a isso.