Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
5 min of reading 
39 comments 
A Decades-Long Dispute Over Branches on the Property Line Resulted in a Million-Dollar Fine and Established at the STJ the Understanding That Ignoring a Pruning Order Can Be Costly.
A neighborhood dispute on the shore of Lagoa Rodrigo de Freitas, in the south zone of Rio de Janeiro, transformed a disagreement over tree pruning into a fine of R$ 10 million.
The 3rd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) upheld the fine against heirs who, for decades, disobeyed court decisions to contain the canopy of trees on the property line between two properties, consolidating the understanding that the law allows severe punishments for those who ignore pruning orders, even when the trees have existed for many years.
By confirming the fine, the court reaffirmed that the so-called astreintes have an essentially coercive function.
-
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 Senate approves a bill that criminalizes misogyny, hatred, or aversion towards women, and includes the crime in the Racism Law with a penalty of up to 5 years.
According to the court, the high value does not stem from excesses by the Judiciary, but from the prolonged resistance of the debtors to fulfill their obligation.
STJ Decision and the Weight of Judicial Fines
The case reached the STJ in a special appeal, identified as REsp 2.097.457, after the Court of Justice of Rio de Janeiro (TJ-RJ) limited the collectible fine to R$ 10 million, despite an originally higher amount of over R$ 20 million accumulated over the years.
The report at the STJ was assigned to Minister Nancy Andrighi, who rejected a new reduction.
In her vote, the magistrate emphasized that the very conduct of the debtors caused the fine to grow.
She noted that when the exorbitance results from the debtor’s negligence, there is generally no room for reducing the accumulated value of the astreintes.
Although the majority followed the rapporteur, there was dissent.
Minister Moura Ribeiro proposed to reduce the amount to R$ 500 thousand, arguing that there was a disproportion between the pruning obligation and the final amount.
He argued that other executive measures could have been prioritized instead of maintaining a fine that, alone, was insufficient to compel compliance.
The dissenting opinion, however, was defeated. Thus, the amount of R$ 10 million prevailed.
Consequently, the 3rd Panel consolidated the message that the daily fine does not substitute the main obligation but serves as economic pressure to ensure compliance with the court ruling.
Timeline of the Litigation at Lagoa Rodrigo de Freitas
The conflict began in 1983 when the owners of one of the properties filed a lawsuit to compel the pruning of the trees on the property line.
According to the initial petition, the canopy extended over the neighboring property, compromising light, ventilation, and the view of the lagoon.
Two years later, in 1985, the parties reached an agreement.
It was agreed that the canopy of the trees would be maintained at the height of a two-meter wall.
Periodic maintenance would be the responsibility of the then-defendants.
Despite the formal commitment, the determinations were repeatedly disregarded in the following decades.
In light of the resistance, the court set a daily fine of R$ 10 thousand for noncompliance.
Over the years, the lack of pruning and the accumulation of days of delay caused the total to exceed R$ 20 million.
In the sentence enforcement phase, the TJ-RJ limited the collectible amount to R$ 10 million, without removing the coercive mechanism.
This solution was upheld by the STJ in a judgment held in October 2024.
In 2025, published analyses and decisions confirmed that the ruling remains intact and is being cited as an example of a burdensome neighborhood litigation.
Legal Rules on Invasive Branches and Neighborhood Rights
The case centers on neighborhood rights. Article 1.283 of the Civil Code authorizes the owner of the affected land to cut roots and branches that exceed the property line.
This provision supports the obligation to keep the canopy contained when the vegetation exceeds the boundary.
In procedural terms, the specific enforcement of obligations to do or not to do is governed by articles 536 and 537 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The first addresses the means of enforcing decisions. The second regulates the punitive fine, the astreintes, which can be set, increased, or reduced by the judge.
These rules allow the Judiciary to impose and maintain daily fines in cases of repeated noncompliance.
How the Fine Reached the Million-Dollar Value
The amount of R$ 10 million results from the sum of a daily fine of R$ 10 thousand over years of resistance.
The rapporteur highlighted that the significant increase is a direct consequence of the debtors’ inertia.
The longer a judicial order is ignored, the greater the accumulated amount.
For the majority of the 3rd Panel, reducing the fine under these circumstances could weaken its coercive purpose.
The reduction could end up benefiting those who deliberately prolong noncompliance.
In the dissenting position, Minister Moura Ribeiro argued that the Judiciary should have prioritized other executive measures. The dissent was not accepted.
Practical Consequences for Neighborhood Disputes
By reaffirming the legitimacy of astreintes in significant amounts, the STJ reinforces the message that ignoring court decisions can lead to significant financial outcomes.
The case has become a cited example of how neighborhood rights can produce severe consequences when obligations are not met.
For those feeling harmed by invasive branches, the path includes documenting the issue and seeking legal advice.
If necessary, it is possible to take legal action based on Article 1.283 of the Civil Code and the CPC.
Those responsible for the tree must observe judicial decisions and plan for periodic canopy maintenance.
When required, they should obtain environmental authorization for pruning. Thus, the precedent serves as a warning.
Simple neighborhood disputes can turn into lengthy and costly lawsuits.
How far is a property owner willing to go — and pay — to insist on ignoring a pruning order that could have been fulfilled with simple interventions?
Gostaria de obter o número do processo
Meus Deus, quantos erros de português nesse texto, que jornalista é esse?
Quanto a matéria, só retrata mais uma das inúmeras incompetência do governo, que vive para criar dificuldade para vender facilidade (propina).
Arvores nas calcadas atrapalhar as pessoas idosas deficientes criancas pessoas andar nas calcadas deve plantar arvores e plantas nas pracas casas em lugar que nao vai atrapalhar as pessoas andar plantar em jardims lugares para plantar arvores grande plantar em casa arvores frutiferas goiabas acerola abacaxis ameixas bananas mangas laranjas limao outras frutas