Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
2 min of reading 
0 comments 
Decision of the 2nd Civil Court of Caçapava Rejected Claims for Moral and Material Damages Concluding That the Plaintiff Did Not Prove Personal Losses Nor Link Between Works, Alleged Expenses, and Health Problems
The Justice of Caçapava Denied Compensation for Moral and Material Damages to a Resident Who Attributed Losses to Construction Work of a Shopping Mall Neighbouring Her Home, a Decision of the 2nd Civil Court of Caçapava, Still Subject to Appeal.
Interdiction of the Property and Measures Taken
According to the case, the woman lived in a property that did not belong to her when the shopping mall construction began on the neighbouring land.
After the work started, leaks and cracks appeared in the residence, a situation that prompted a technical inspection and resulted in the property’s interdiction.
-
The Municipal Guard secures strategic points in Curitiba against chain snatching, expands operations in Portão and Matriz, and reacts after a R$ 1,500 chain is snatched.
-
‘Loan shark can work,’ but with limits, and lending money with interest is not a crime! STJ decides that collection between individuals is permitted and maintains the obligation to return the principal amount; see rules, limits, and when there is abuse
-
Will rent payers be reimbursed in the 2026 Income Tax? Federal Revenue clarifies rule that surprises millions of Brazilians
-
Schools are expected to make assessments more difficult in 2026, and students fear failing due to a project that opposes automatic promotion in Brazil.
In light of the situation, the business covered hotel accommodation and rental payments for 12 months, in addition to reaching an agreement with the owners.
The agreement provided for necessary renovations in the property while the resident stayed in an alternative location, with initial expenses covered by the shopping mall.
Legal Request and Allegations
At the end of the period, the resident did not return to the house, citing personal issues, and continued living in the rented property with expenses paid by the business.
Later, she filed a legal action requesting compensation for damaged furniture and reimbursement for new accommodation expenses.
The action also sought reimbursement for transportation and food expenses, in addition to compensation for psychological damages allegedly resulting from the construction work.
Justification of the Court’s Ruling
In the ruling, Judge Simone Cristina de Oliveira stated that the plaintiff was not the owner of the property or the allegedly damaged furniture.
According to the judge, it is not possible to recognize material loss when the claimed goods belong to third parties, making any property compensation unfeasible.
The judge also rejected the request for reimbursement for food and transportation, arguing that such expenses are part of ordinary routine.
For the decision, these expenses would be incurred regardless of the property’s interdiction, having no direct relation to the shopping mall’s construction.
Regarding moral damages, the judge concluded that there was no proof of a link between the alleged health problems and the facts presented.
The ruling recorded the absence of evidence that dental and orthopedic treatments had any relation to the construction, keeping the possibility of appeal open.
With information from Itatiaia.
-
-
2 people reacted to this.