Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
3 min of reading 
4 comments 
Santa Catarina Court Understood That The Right To Transfer Exists Only With Full Payment Of The Contract, Rejecting The Theory Of Substantial Performance.
The Santa Catarina Court of Justice (TJ-SC) decided that those who do not fully settle the real estate purchase and sale contract do not have the right to transfer ownership, even if the amount paid exceeds 97% of the total. The decision overturned a ruling that had granted the compulsory adjudication of an apartment in Itajaí (SC).
According to the Conjur portal, the court emphasized that the absence of full payment prevents the final deed, since the compulsory adjudication is a action that replaces the formal registry when the seller refuses to sign the deed requires complete payment as an essential requirement.
The Case That Reached The Court
The case began when the buyer of an apartment under construction filed a compulsory adjudication action claiming to have settled almost the entire contract, with a difference of about R$ 6 thousand remaining.
-
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 Senate approves a bill that criminalizes misogyny, hatred, or aversion towards women, and includes the crime in the Racism Law with a penalty of up to 5 years.
-
Chamber Approves Bill That Allows Pepper Spray for Women Over 16 and Imposes Strict Rules for Purchase, Possession, and Use as Self-Defense
-
Chamber Approves Law to Combat Leucaena, Fast-Growing Plant That Dominates Land and Threatens Native Species in Various Regions of the Country
The outstanding amount arose from a disagreement over the monetary correction index applied to the last installment.
The trial judge accepted the buyer’s argument and applied the so-called theory of substantial performance, according to which nearly full compliance with a contract may exempt full settlement.
Thus, he ordered the transfer of the property to the plaintiff.
TJ-SC’s Understanding
The 7th Civil Chamber of TJ-SC unanimously overturned the decision.
According to the rapporteur, the theory of substantial performance does not apply to compulsory adjudication actions, which have objective requirements and do not allow flexibility of the primary obligation.
In his vote, the judge emphasized that “one of the requirements for compulsory adjudication corresponds to the full settlement of the agreed price”, and that, without this total payment, the claim is unfeasible, even if most of it has already been fulfilled.
The judge also cited precedents from the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) that consolidate this understanding.
Requirements For Compulsory Adjudication
Compulsory adjudication is the legal instrument that obliges the seller to transfer the property to the buyer when the latter has fulfilled his obligations.
However, full payment of the price is an indispensable condition for the approval of the action.
The TJ-SC reaffirmed that partial payment does not generate the right to ownership, as the property can only be registered in the buyer’s name when there is no outstanding debt.
This position seeks to ensure legal certainty in real estate transactions and avoid contractual insecurity.
Procedural And Financial Consequences
In addition to denying the buyer’s request, the court noted that the appeal was not admitted due to lack of payment of court fees, after the denial of the request for judicial assistance — which constituted desertion.
Thus, there was an inversion of the burdens of loss, obliging the plaintiff to pay the contractual difference and attorney’s fees.
In practice, the decision reinforces the need for strict compliance with the terms of purchase and sale of real estate.
Even if the outstanding balance is small, without full settlement there is no right to transfer or definitive deed.
Legal Impact And Precedents
The TJ-SC decision follows the line adopted by the STJ, which understands that compulsory adjudication requires objective proof of full settlement of the contract, rejecting subjective interpretations about the degree of compliance.
The superior court has already established that nearly full payment does not authorize the transfer of ownership.
This position delineates the limits of contractual good faith: the buyer may have acted correctly, but transfer only occurs with complete settlement.
The precedent serves as a warning for prospective buyers who seek to anticipate possession or the deed without proving the final payment.
Do you agree with the TJ-SC decision to deny the right to transfer even with 97% of the amount settled? Does the rule protect legal certainty or penalize the good faith buyer? Share your opinion in the comments we want to hear from those who have experienced similar situations in real estate contracts.
Tem que ver se o ordenamento jurídico ampara essa modalidade compensatório na proporcionalidade ao percentual majoritariamente pago ao credor. O problema maior agora será na manobra desproporcional ao qual é deferido e descaradamente aceito pelo judiciário. É uma espécie de agressão ditatorial judicial em que o indivíduo é obrigado em nome do egocentrismo do judiciário como forma de vingança persecutória a moratória com juros infinitos.
Parece pelo texto que houve um erro de cobrança ou ao menos uma controvérsias que em tese implicaria em quitação integral e dificil imaginar que para nao pagar 6mil devidos alguem recorreria a justiça, até porque o esperado ocorreu.. perdeu tempo.. gastou dinheiro e nada foi resolvido.
Vai pagar duas ou três vezes por algo que supostamente não devia… enfim patece um caso normal de aplicação concreta da justica brasileira.
Então deveria entrar na justiça para corrigir o erro. E não pleitear a escritura do imóvel.
Uma saída seria o refinanciamento do saldo caso o comprador tenha impedimento financeiro para quitar…