Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
4 min of reading 
0 comments 
With Record Debt and Courts Accepting Ever More Severe Measures Against Debtors, A Controversy Arises: Is It Possible for A Judge to Authorize the Pledge of Your Pet? Understand What the Civil Code, The CPC, and Experts Say About The Topic
Brazil is experiencing a scenario of increasing debt. Millions of families are facing lawsuits for credit card debts, rent, loans, and bank debts. Given this, the Judiciary has adopted measures called “atypical precautionary measures”, which aim to pressure the debtor to pay what they owe — such as suspension of the driver’s license, blocking of passports, and even credit card restrictions.
But a new and controversial discussion has emerged: What if the creditor requests the pledge of your pet?
Pledging a Pet: The Impasse Between Law, Ethics, and Affection
The hypothesis, although it seems absurd, has a legal basis. Article 82 of the Civil Code classifies animals as movable property, which, in theory, would allow their pledge. Moreover, they are not listed among the non-attachable assets in Article 833 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
However, the case is not so simple. According to jurist Marcelo Kokke, federal prosecutor of the Attorney General’s Office (AGU) and a specialist in Constitutional Law, this issue reveals an ethical and moral conflict that transcends the legal realm.
Kokke explains that, from an economic standpoint, some animals have a high market value — a Tibetan Mastiff can exceed R$ 1 million, and a Pomeranian can reach R$ 10,000. Technically, therefore, they could be considered products or consumer goods.
-
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.
However, when there is emotional and familial bond — as is the case with most pets — jurisprudence has been moving towards recognizing non-attachability, placing the animal in what is termed a “multi-species family”.
Animals with Affection Value: What Protects Your Pet from Pledge
The idea of a “multi-species family” stems from the recognition that pets occupy an affective and psychological role in human life, directly contributing to emotional well-being.
According to Kokke, “the presence of the pet is tied to the right to psychological integrity, spiritual harmony, and healthy family coexistence.” Therefore, the pledge of an animal with an emotional bond would be a violation of personality rights, something incompatible with human and animal dignity.
The Superior Court of Justice (STJ) has already recognized animals as sentient beings, capable of feeling pain and emotion, reinforcing the view that pets should not be treated as mere objects of pledge.
Still, there are exceptions: livestock, cattle, and commercially raised animals can be pledged, as they do not have a direct emotional relationship with their owners. Similarly, animals for sale in pet shops can be considered attachable goods, as there is a commercial intention, rather than a family coexistence.
Lack of Specific Law Leaves Decisions in the Hands of Judges
The absence of a clear norm means that the topic depends on the understanding of each magistrate. In practice, it would be up to the pet owner to prove the emotional and familial bond to prevent the pledge.
The text, originally published by O Fator, highlights that Law No. 14,064/2020 made mistreatment of dogs and cats more serious than mistreatment of other animals, thus creating different categories of protection.
This distinction opens the floor for discussions: Would a horse, a pig, or an exotic bird have the same non-attachability rights as a dog? And what about a rare aquarium fish, whose owner claims emotional attachment?
For Kokke, the ideal would be a specific law on the non-attachability of pets, preventing the issue from being subject to individual court interpretation.
The Thin Line Between Affection and Property
The debate on the pledge of pets exposes the paradox between affection and property rights. The animal can be bought, sold, and even inherited, but it can also be an essential part of someone’s emotional life.
While legislation does not advance, the prevailing understanding is that only animals with proven emotional bonds are non-attachable, and others, with a commercial function, can be used to settle debts.
Thus, if one day the creditor knocks on your door, your car or property may be blocked — but at least for now, your dog remains protected by the love that transforms it into family.
Source: article published by O Fator, based on text by Marcelo Kokke, federal prosecutor of the AGU and national coordinator of IBAMA.
And you, what do you think about this? Do you believe that the Civil Code should be updated to recognize all pets as family members, making their pledge illegal under any circumstance, or do you think that, given the increase in debts and the need to protect creditor rights, some specific cases could justify this extreme measure?
-
-
-
-
-
47 pessoas reagiram a isso.