Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
4 min of reading 
0 comments 
Decision of the Ninth Panel of the TRT-MG Recognized the Good Faith of Buyers of a Property Worth R$ 260 Thousand and Applied a STJ Precedent to Dismiss Fraud Suspicions.
The Ninth Panel of the Regional Labor Court of the 3rd Region (TRT-MG) decided to overturn a ruling from the 29th Labor Court of Belo Horizonte and recognized the good faith of buyers of a property that had been seized to pay a labor debt.
The panel understood that there was no fraud to execution in the acquisition of the asset, since the purchase occurred before any record of unavailability or lien on the property title.
Judicial Dispute Over the Lien
After the property was seized in the labor execution process, the new owners filed a third-party objection.
-
In a boat just 1.19 meters long, smaller than many kayaks, Briton Andrew Bedwell wants to cross nearly 3,000 kilometers of the North Atlantic alone and spend more than two months without being able to lie down or stand up, all to break a record and honor cancer victims.
-
While most dealerships in Brazil take days to deliver cars, in Germany two 48-meter glass towers hold 800 vehicles and release each model via automatic elevators in a few seconds.
-
In Japan, a 40 by 60-meter concrete museum without pillars rises like a floating drop, allowing wind, light, and rain inside the space and surprising architects and engineers with the delicacy of the structure.
-
While traditional constructions rely on tons of concrete to support weight, in England an abandoned site was converted into transparent hexagonal domes, combining lightweight engineering and mine repurposing, transforming the landscape and local tourism.
In the first instance, the action was judged unfounded, on the grounds that the acquisition would constitute an attempt to defraud execution.
However, the appellants appealed, and the Ninth Panel of the TRT-MG granted the petition appeal, recognizing the validity of the purchase and the absence of fraud.
The reporting judge highlighted that the jurisprudence of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) requires a careful analysis of the good faith of the third-party purchaser of the property, even attributing validity to a private contract for purchase and sale to demonstrate the legitimacy of the deal and possession. In this sense, she mentioned STJ Precedents 84 and 375.
Details of the Property Negotiation
The property in question belonged to the debtors of the labor credit and was acquired by the appellants through a purchase and sale commitment made in September 2023.
The deed was registered at the notary’s office in October of the same year. The transaction amount was R$ 260 thousand, paid in cash.
At the time of the purchase registration, there was no notation of unavailability on the property title. According to the decision, the registration document stated that there were no personal or real actions capable of affecting the property at the time of acquisition.
Thus, the buyers were not aware of any potential restrictions related to the financial situation of the sellers.
Reasoning of the Decision
The reporting judge emphasized that, although the labor action was filed in June 2022, therefore before the sale, fraud to execution cannot be presumed without evidence of bad faith from the purchasers.
She pointed out that good faith is presumed and that it is up to the one alleging fraud to prove otherwise, which did not happen in this case.
The decision clarified that Article 792 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) defines the circumstances that characterize fraud to execution, such as when there is a notation of the action in public records, judicial lien, or other acts of judicial constraint.
Fraud is also considered when the sale can lead to the debtor’s insolvency. However, in the examined case, there was no record that warned third parties about restrictions on the property.
The decision highlighted that the legal security of contracts must prevail and that fraud to execution can only be recognized when there is evidence of bad faith or records indicating the existence of restrictions. Since such elements were not present, the Panel concluded that the purchase was legitimate.
Application of the STJ Precedent
The panel applied the understanding of STJ Precedent 375, which states: “the recognition of fraud to execution depends on the registration of the lien on the alienated asset or evidence of bad faith from the third-party purchaser.”
In this context, the reporting judge emphasized that the evidence in the records demonstrated the absence of impeditive records and confirmed the good faith of the purchasers.
“There was no evidence of bad faith from the buyers, nor the alleged fraud, since the appellants were unaware of any risk of insolvency of the debtors with the sale of the property,” registered the decision.
With this position, the Ninth Panel dismissed the presumption of fraud and recognized the legitimacy of the purchase and sale contract entered into by the appellants.
This understanding reaffirms the need to safeguard the good faith of third parties and ensure the security of duly formalized legal transactions.
Be the first to react!