Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
5 min of reading 
0 comments 
Recent Decisions Of The Superior Court Have Defined When The Exclusive Use Of The Common Property After Divorce Generates The Right To Indemnity And When The Presence Of The Child On Site Avoids The Charge, Balancing Responsibilities Between The Ex-Spouses.
The jurisprudence of the Superior Court has delineated two clear scenarios for the use of the common property after separation: there is proportional indemnity when one of the ex-spouses occupies the property exclusively, and there is no indemnity when the property serves as housing for the couple’s child who resides with the custodial parent.
In recent decisions, the ministers reinforced that the presence of the descendant disqualifies exclusive possession and renders the request for “compensatory rent” unfeasible.
When The Presence Of The Child Avoids Indemnity
In July 2024, the Third Chamber dismissed the charging of rent from an ex-wife who remained in the apartment with her daughter.
-
Starting in May 2026, all companies in Brazil will be required to map burnout, moral harassment, and chronic stress of employees under the risk of fines from the Ministry of Labor due to the new NR-1.
-
Did your neighbor use your wall as support without asking and you only noticed later? See when this can become a problem, what signs indicate risk, and what to do before the situation worsens.
-
A bill could eliminate councilors in small towns in Brazil and replace fixed salaries with session allowances in municipalities with up to 30,000 inhabitants.
-
As the use of slimming pens grows in Brazil, a silent question arises among taxpayers in the 2026 income tax: why can’t these expenses be deducted and what specific detail could completely transform this rule into an isolated case?
The panel understood that, in these cases, the property fulfills the function of housing for the offspring, which prevents categorizing the situation as an exclusive benefit for the adult who stayed on site and, therefore, eliminates the claim for indemnity.
The decision followed the line of previous cases and was publicized by the Court’s Communication Office.
This understanding is not isolated.
In 2021, the Fourth Chamber rejected a request for the arbitration of rent against an ex-husband who lived with their daughter in the common property subject to division, reinforcing that the descendant’s residence removes the configuration of exclusive possession on the part of the parent.
The court also underscored the parental duty to provide housing, shifting the discussion from individual enjoyment to the support of the offspring.
General Rule: Exclusive Use Generates Compensation
When there is no child living on the property and one of the ex-spouses occupies the property alone, the established guidance allows for the arbitration of indemnity proportional to the ideal share of the co-owner who is excluded, even before the formal division.
This construction is supported, among others, by Articles 1,319 and 1,326 of the Civil Code, which deal with the responsibility of the co-owner for the fruits received and the sharing of fruits in accordance with their shares.
The logic is to prevent unjust enrichment while the co-ownership resulting from the divorce persists.
In practice, the value is calculated based on the market rent of the property, applying the share of the co-owner excluded from direct possession.
This essentially represents a presumed rental income that seeks to reflect what would have been obtained if the property were rented to a third party.
The technique appears in precedents from the STJ itself when examining requests for “rent” in exclusive occupations after dissolution.
When Is The “Rent” Due
A point of practical impact is the initial benchmark for compensation.
State courts have reiterated that indemnity only becomes enforceable when the occupant receives unequivocal notice of the other co-owner’s opposition to exclusive enjoyment.
Before that, generally, a tacit loan is recognized — a temporary and unpaid tolerance between ex-partners.
Therefore, formal notifications, emails, and petitions expressing disagreement tend to be decisive for setting the start of the charge.
Why The Child’s Housing Changes The Scenario
In cases where the child resides in the property, the STJ has stated that the occupation does not represent an exclusive advantage for the adult but rather the fulfillment of a parental duty.
In this context, the housing integrates the provision of child support, shifting the debate from the realm of asset compensation to the sphere of supporting the offspring.
Thus, the presence of the descendant dilutes the concept of individual enjoyment and removes the thesis of unjust enrichment.
In decisions disseminated by the court’s communication, this rationale was made explicit, emphasizing that the child’s residence prevents the narrative of exclusivity that supports the request for compensatory rent.
Recent Signaling And Predictability
The thesis has also been synthesized in decisions indexed in official repositories.
In Special Appeal 2,082,584, judged by the Third Chamber, it was established that, when the property serves as housing for the common child together with the custodial ex-spouse, there is no exclusive possession, an element that underpins the arbitration of rent in favor of the non-occupying co-owner.
This formulation provides predictability for agreements and evidentiary instruction, reducing litigation over what is due after the end of the marital relationship.
Before Or After The Division: When To Discuss Compensation
The discussion regarding “compensatory rent” can occur before the division, precisely to avoid patrimonial asymmetries during this transition period.
While co-ownership persists and there is exclusive occupation, the request is admissible to balance the burden between the parties.
Conversely, if there is a child living in the property with the custodial parent, jurisprudence has dismissed indemnity, without prejudice to the judge evaluating, in the concrete case, whether the housing meets or compensates for “in-kind” child support.
Evidence That Tends To Weigh
Market evaluation reports, appraisals from real estate agents, and documents regarding ordinary and extraordinary expenses of the property contribute to determining what would be due or demonstrating the non-existence of the obligation, depending on the circumstances.
In requests for indemnity, the elements that demonstrate rental value and the participation of each co-owner tend to guide the arbitration.
When there is a child in the property, custody records, residence documentation, and the needs of the offspring help outline the family purpose of the possession.
In Practical Summary
Today, the benchmark is objective: exclusive use by one ex-spouse, without a child residing on the property, allows for the proportional charging of “rent.”
Housing of the child with the ex who stayed in the property disqualifies exclusivity and removes indemnity.
The initial benchmark, when applicable, depends on the formal opposition of the excluded co-owner, and the value is based on the market income of the property, in the share belonging to the other co-owner.
In your situation, is there a child from the couple living in the property and is there a document proving that the dissatisfied co-owner formalized the opposition to the exclusive use?
-
-
-
4 pessoas reagiram a isso.