Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
5 min of reading 
0 comments 
STJ Decides That Alimony Payments Can Be Maintained Indefinitely After Years of Voluntary Contribution, Even with Judicial Exoneration, and Reinforces Principles of Trust and Good Faith in Family Relationships.
The 3rd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) decided that alimony can be maintained for a indefinite period when the ex-spouse, even after having been formally exonerated, continues to pay the benefit voluntarily for a long period.
The understanding was unanimous and overturned previous decisions that had exempted the debtor from the obligation.
The judgment arose from a special appeal filed by a woman against her ex-husband.
-
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 couple had entered into a legally sanctioned agreement in 1993 that provided for the payment of alimony and health insurance for one year.
Two years later, the parties adjusted a new pact, this time for an indefinite period and without judicial approval.
Despite the lack of formal validation, the ex-husband maintained the payments for over 20 years.
In 2018, he filed a lawsuit asking for exoneration, claiming reduced income and the need to cover medical treatment costs.
The ex-wife stated that she depended on the alimony due to her advanced age and difficulties in reintegrating into the job market.
The lower courts had accepted the ex-husband’s request, ending the payments.
The 3rd Panel of the STJ, however, upheld the woman’s appeal and reinstated the obligation, recognizing that the debtor’s prolonged behavior created a legitimate expectation of continuity in the payment.
Good Faith and Trust in Family Relationships
Minister Nancy Andrighi, the case rapporteur, stated that the principle of trust should be especially protected in family relationships.
According to her, “within the realm of family relationships, the notion of trust should be especially protected, so that conduct contrary to trust will, as a rule, also be contrary to objective good faith.”
According to the rapporteur’s vote, the sudden termination of a benefit paid consistently can violate this trust, especially when the beneficiary shows personal conditions that indicate financial dependency.
The minister also noted that the court’s jurisprudence has allowed the maintenance of alimony for an indefinite period in cases of advanced age, fragile health, or inability to return to the job market.
Family Law experts consulted by legal outlets state that the judgment reinforces the application of objective good faith as a criterion for analyzing the behavior of the parties, without altering the reviewable nature of alimony.
Concepts of “Supressio” and “Surrectio” Support Decision
In the winning vote, the panel used the legal concepts of supressio and surrectio, from Civil Law, to support the decision.
Supressio occurs when the holder of a right ceases to exercise it for an extended period, leading the opposing party to believe that it will no longer be claimed.
Surrectio, on the other hand, recognizes the emergence of a new right arising from the continued conduct of one of the parties.
Based on these principles, the ministers understood that the ex-husband’s conduct—by maintaining payments for more than two decades—created in the ex-wife a legitimate expectation of continuity, becoming legally relevant.
The court considered that, by not interrupting the payments for so long, the alimentary provider caused the consolidation of that expectation.
In the judgment, Andrighi stated that “the prolonged inaction of the alimony creditor in promoting the execution of the overdue alimony can generate, in the debtor, the legitimate expectation that the payment is no longer necessary.”
Conversely, she explained, the alimentary provider who continues making voluntary payments leads the alimented party to the expectation of continuity, which “can become legally relevant, especially in light of the repeated and systematic manifestation of will.”
Case History
The case is under judicial confidentiality, which restricts access to the case number and the full content of the vote.
According to information from the STJ, the original agreement, from 1993, provided for the payment of alimony and health insurance for 12 months.
In 1995, there was a new understanding between the parties, without judicial record, but which resulted in regular payments for over 20 years.
In 2018, the ex-husband filed a lawsuit to terminate the obligation, claiming that his income had decreased and he needed the funds for medical treatment.
The ex-wife argued that she financially depended on the alimony, which became essential given her age and lack of own income.
The lower courts accepted the debtor’s request, but the STJ overturned the decision based on the continued behavior and objective good faith.
Impact and Limits of the Decision
According to the STJ, the understanding does not establish an automatic lifetime alimony, but recognizes that each case should be analyzed according to the context and the conduct of the parties.
Legal scholars consulted by specialized legal publications explain that the decision reinforces the relevance of good faith and legitimate trust, but does not eliminate the possibility of review or termination of alimony when there are proven changes in the financial situation of either the payer or recipient.
According to attorneys in the field, the decision serves as a warning for cases where the alimentary provider maintains payments for long periods without seeking judicial review.
In such cases, the history may be interpreted as a continued manifestation of will, limiting the possibility of future interruption without prior negotiation or judicial decision.
Minister Andrighi also noted that the continuity of payments may have allowed the beneficiary to maintain her livelihood, making sudden interruption incompatible with the principle of good faith.
For the court, maintaining alimony, under these circumstances, is not based on charity but on a legal relationship consolidated by the behavior of the parties.
Unanimous Judgment and Case Secrecy
The five ministers of the 3rd Panel followed the rapporteur’s vote.
Due to the confidentiality of the proceedings, there are no details about the amount of alimony or the financial conditions of the ex-couple.
The STJ only reported that the understanding was unanimous and that the established thesis should guide similar decisions in future cases.
The decision revives discussions about the limits of good faith and autonomy in family relationships, especially when the behavior of the parties, maintained over the years, effectively alters the impact of previous court decisions.
To what extent can voluntary behavior transform a temporary obligation into a permanent commitment between ex-partners?
-
Uma pessoa reagiu a isso.