Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
6 min of reading 
0 comments 
São Paulo Court of Justice Decided That a Stepmother Must Pay Rent to Stepchildren to Continue Living in the Family Property After Judicial Dispute Involving Co-ownership of the Asset and Contested Right of Habitation.
The 8th Chamber of Private Law of TJ-SP upheld the decision of the 4th Civil Court of the Regional Forum of Nossa Senhora do Ó and determined that a stepmother must pay rent to her stepchildren to continue living in the family property.
According to the Migalhas portal, in a report published this Monday (22), the court defined that the amount corresponds to 75% of the value determined during the compliance phase of the ruling, preserving the parameters set by the first-degree court.
According to the case documents, the woman lived in stable union with the father of the three plaintiffs and remained in the apartment used by the couple after the death of her partner.
-
Justice condemns truck driver to pay R$ 87,000 after leaving truck with soybean cargo unattended at a gas station for two days: insurance company refused to cover and the loss fell entirely on the driver.
-
Considered Trump’s last ally in Europe, Giorgia Meloni has just suspended a military agreement of over 20 years with Israel and rejected Italy’s entry into the blockade of Hormuz.
-
Little-known law allows pregnant women to receive a pension even before the baby is born, without a DNA test, and the amount can cover exams, food, and medical expenses throughout the entire pregnancy, exceeding thousands of reais per month and potentially being converted into a pension after birth.
-
Those who earn up to R$ 5,000 no longer pay Income Tax since January 2026, and retirees over 65 years old are exempt up to R$ 6,903 in a change that benefits 16 million Brazilians.
After his death, the heirs legally questioned the exclusive occupation of the property and requested compensation for the period of use without consideration.
The court acknowledged that the property was not exclusively owned by the deceased.
Before the start of the stable union, the asset had been partitioned due to the death of the first wife — the mother of the plaintiffs — making the children co-owners of 50% of the apartment.
In this configuration, the stepmother’s continued occupation of the property hinders the full exercise of property rights by the other owners, justifying the imposition of rent.
Right of Habitation Was Dismissed in the Specific Case
In the leading vote, the rapporteur Ronnie Herbert Barros Soares concluded that the real right of habitation does not apply to the surviving partner.
The central basis is objective: during the period of stable union, the deceased did not have exclusive ownership of the property that served as their common residence.
In such situations, the institution intended to protect the residence of the surviving spouse or partner cannot prevail to restrict a pre-existing co-ownership.
The magistrate also emphasized the absence of a legal connection that imposes family solidarity between stepchildren and the partner, so as to transfer the burden of ensuring the survivor’s residence to them.
In a passage cited in the ruling, the rapporteur noted that, given the “pre-existing co-ownership,” the plaintiffs did not acquire their right “as a result of the father’s death,” but through their mother’s succession; therefore, “the real right of habitation does not apply” in the analyzed context.
Co-Ownership and Exclusive Use: Why There Is Rent to Pay
Although the partner remained in the property after the death of her partner, the legal situation of the asset was already defined by co-ownership.
Since the children are holders of ideal fractions of the apartment, the full occupation of the space by the stepmother prevents them from using the property or deriving income from it.
In these cases, the jurisprudence allows for rental compensation as a way to compensate the co-owners for exclusive use by a third party.
The court set the payment obligation at 75% of the reference value to be determined in the liquidation.
This percentage, according to the decision, meets the proportionality of the case and ensures compensation for the period during which the property is used solely by one of the parties.
The final amount will be determined in the compliance phase, a procedural stage in which the amount due is calculated according to market parameters and elements of the case.
Timeline of Family Asset
The timeline was decisive for the outcome. First, the death of the mother of the plaintiffs occurred, an event that led to the partition and guaranteed them 50% of the property.
Only after that did the stable union between the father and the now requested partner begin.
Thus, when the father’s death occurred, the partner could not invoke the real right of habitation to neutralize a prior and legitimate property right of the heirs.
Besides this sequence, there is no kinship between the stepchildren and the surviving partner that imposes property duties capable of surpassing the already constituted co-ownership.
The court, therefore, preserved the priority of the title held by the children, ruling out the possibility of free occupation of the property.
Unanimous Judgment and Composition of the Chamber
The decision was made unanimously.
The rapporteur was accompanied in the vote by judges Silvério da Silva and Pedro de Alcântara da Silva Leme Filho, members of the 8th Chamber of Private Law.
As a result, the determination was maintained for the stepmother to pay rent if she chooses to continue residing in the family apartment.
Even though the obligation is defined, the process will proceed to the stage of determining the amount, when objective elements will be considered to fix the monthly amount due.
Until the conclusion of this phase, the criterion established in the ruling regarding the 75% percentage remains in effect.
What Is in the Process and Where to Locate the Decision
The case is recorded under the number 1012159-10.2014.8.26.0020 and originated in the 4th Civil Court of the Regional Forum of Nossa Senhora do Ó, in São Paulo.
The decision document from the second instance confirms the thesis that previous co-ownership makes it impossible for the surviving partner to use the right of habitation when the deceased was not the exclusive owner of the residential property.
The ruling is linked to the appeal examined by the 8th Chamber and can be consulted in the case files.
Practical Impacts for Blended Families
Although the decision concerns a specific case, it reinforces guidance of interest in contexts of blended families.
Where there is co-ownership formed by heirs from a prior relationship, the continued occupancy of the property by the new spouse or partner tends to require compensation to the other owners, unless an agreement is reached between the parties.
The judicial solution seeks to balance the use of the asset with each co-owner’s right to enjoyment, preventing one of them from bearing the burden of exclusive occupation alone.
This parameter also serves as a preventive signal: inventories and partitions that consolidate co-ownerships before new unions require attention regarding the use of common property.
Without consensus among the co-owners, the alternative usually involves compensation, sale of the common asset, or adjustments that allow for alternating use, measures that depend on negotiation or, in the absence of such, judicial decision.
What Was Stated in the Vote
In summarizing the scenario, the rapporteur pointed out that the plaintiffs’ ideal fraction was secured “long ago through their mother’s succession.”
He also highlighted the absence of obligational legal affinity capable of imposing on the stepchildren the duty to ensure free housing for the surviving partner.
Based on these elements, he concluded that the real right of habitation is not applicable and confirmed the need for compensatory rent for the exclusive use of the apartment.
In similar contexts, the solution adopted by the court tends to guide extrajudicial agreements, including regarding the calculation basis for rent and the conditions for the occupant’s stay in the property.
In the absence of consensus, the definition falls to the responsible judge for execution, who adjusts values according to the case’s evidence.
What essential precautions do you consider necessary to avoid property conflicts when there is co-ownership among heirs and the surviving partner wishes to remain in the property?
-
-
-
11 pessoas reagiram a isso.