Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
4 min of reading 
43 comments 
Santa Catarina Court Decided That Sporadic Dog Barking Does Not Constitute Moral Damage. Understanding Reinforces the Need for Technical Evidence and Delimits the Tolerance Limits Provided in the Civil Code in Neighborhood Conflicts.
A recent decision by the Santa Catarina Court clarified the necessary conditions for noise caused by dogs to be considered grounds for compensation in the context of neighborly coexistence.
The understanding, established by the 3rd Civil Chamber on February 27, 2025, reinforced that occasional barking does not characterize moral damage nor constitutes an infringement on the right to peace, unless it exceeds the limits considered normal in residential areas.
The controversy began when a resident of Itajaí filed a lawsuit seeking financial compensation in the amount of R$ 3,000.
-
Hidden marks on the walls of the site associated with the Last Supper of Jesus for centuries have been deciphered in Jerusalem, revealing medieval inscriptions left by pilgrims, European nobles, and travelers from the Middle East.
-
One of the most important lakes in the United States for birds, the balance of nature, and the climate has dried to historic levels, leaving boats stranded, revealing salt flats, and showing how the lack of water can transform an entire landscape.
-
It’s not Cristiano Ronaldo or Messi: the richest football player in the world is only 27 years old, has a fortune of 100 billion reais, and is the nephew of a sultan from an Asian country that few people know about.
-
At 77, the king of one of the most famous and powerful crowns on the planet is said to be under pressure to leave the throne, while behind the scenes there are already talks of a new coronation that could cost R$ 260 million.
He alleged that barking from the neighboring house, since 2017, had been causing him discomfort and damage to his quality of life.
The case gained prominence for addressing an increasingly common conflict in large cities, where the presence of pets is significant, and the limits of coexistence must be respected.
TJ/SC Defines Limits for Noise Disturbance Between Neighbors
Upon examining the case, the judges noted that, despite the recordings submitted by the plaintiff, made via a mobile app, it was not possible to prove that the noises were continuous or exceeded acceptable levels.
A police report produced during the proceedings also did not indicate any irregularities, and the resident himself withdrew his intention to present witnesses to support his account of the facts.
The report of the ruling emphasized that the existence of dogs in an urban environment naturally implies occasional noises, resulting from animal behavior and, often, from reactions to stimuli in the surroundings.
According to the Chamber’s understanding, Brazilian legislation, especially article 1.277 of the Civil Code, protects the right to neighborly relations but requires clear demonstration that the disturbance exceeds the standards of civilized coexistence.
In the ruling, the rapporteur stressed that “it is expected that, in places with the presence of animals, occasional barking occurs, often one reacting to another, which does not trigger a violation of the right to peace”.
For the judges, the plaintiff failed to technically prove that the noise was abnormal enough to justify compensation.
Technical Evidence Is Essential for Cases of This Type
The Court’s understanding reflects established jurisprudence in the Superior Court of Justice, which admits the possibility of compensation for noise disturbance only when it is precisely demonstrated that the noise is excessive and continuous.
In such cases, official records, technical reports prepared by acoustic engineers with calibrated equipment for measuring decibels, in addition to credible testimonies, are often decisive for establishing the right to compensation.
In the case at hand, the material presented by the resident was not deemed sufficient to ascertain the severity of the alleged disturbance.
The fact that the police officer called to the location did not find any unusual noise weighed in the judges’ evaluation.
The absence of technical evidence and witnesses contributed to the dismissal of the request.
Moreover, the judges highlighted that the right to peace must be balanced with property rights and the right to keep domestic animals.
This balance requires reciprocal sacrifices between neighbors, as community living imposes shared limits and duties.
Repercussions for Pet Owners and Neighbors
The decision serves as a reference for similar situations, delineating criteria for analyzing compensation requests related to noise caused by dogs.
According to data from IBGE, it is estimated that there are about 65 million dogs in Brazilian households in 2025, which highlights the trend of increasing conflicts of this nature.
For those experiencing disturbances due to animal noise, specialists initially recommend seeking direct dialogue, attempting to resolve the situation amicably.
If the disturbance persists, it is crucial to gather robust evidence, such as police reports, testimonies from neighbors in the same building or block, and, especially, acoustic inspection reports certifying the level of noise and its frequency.
The judges also noted that audio recording apps can help document incidents, but alone, they rarely convince courts without qualified expert examination.
Technology, therefore, needs to be combined with traditional methods of evidence to have practical effects in lawsuits.
Coexistence, Solutions, and Trends in the Judiciary
Experts in real estate and condominium law point out that the ideal is to invest in preventive measures, such as training dogs, environmental enrichment to prevent barking motivated by anxiety, and the use of acoustic barriers in outdoor areas.
Condominiums can also establish quiet hours and specific rules in their bylaws to minimize disputes.
The understanding of the 3rd Civil Chamber signals that the protection of peace must coexist with other rights, requiring balance and concrete evidence before any legal action.
The trend, according to lawyers working in the field, is that Brazilian courts will increasingly require stricter proof of noise disturbances before granting compensations.
In the current scenario, how would you assess the balance between the right to silence and the freedom to keep pets in cities?
Eu não suportaria qualquer barulho constante nem na minha casa. Tenho ansiedade de alto nível e fico pensando nos autistas que tbm não suportam barulho. No meu caso, chamaria os bombeiros p me socorrer pois me dá crises. Não sou eu, não é pq sou chata, é que não suporto barulho mesmo. Tenho laudos não de um psiquiatra, mas de três.
Minha vizinha tem 21 ****, e não é uma chácara, é casa de conjunto, sabem o que é 21 **** latindo as 03, as 4, 5, enfim várias vezes no dia?!!? Mas o que fazer? Hj em dia, não podemos reclamar, pois criaremos um problema muito maior do que o incomodo com os latidos.
O que é mais fácil calar a boca de um ****,ou á descarga de uma moto,pois **** foi Deus quem criou e á moto foi o homem, tô certo ou estou errado? teve um político que queria que os **** se calasse, resumindo está querendo sacrificar ****, á descarga de moto incomoda muito mas e é muito fácil de silenciar,👍