STJ decision on salary garnishment to pay off rent debt was coherent

nila44

In a recent decision, the Superior Court of Justice authorized the seizure of 15% of a debtor's salary to pay off rental debt. In this specific case, in addition to the debtor having a salary considered high, of around R$29 thousand, he contracted the debt through the rental of residential property.


It is known that the current Code of Civil Procedure regulates the execution process, which aims to guarantee the satisfaction of the creditor, in receiving amounts or goods, in the face of debt acquired by the debtor.

It is true that there are numerous B2B Lead innovations brought about by the 2015 Civil Procedure Code. Among them, the fundamental precepts of the civil process stand out, which regulate procedural rules in accordance with the 1988 Federal Constitution, to achieve the constitutional vision of the process.

Article 833 of the Code of Civil Procedure contains the general rule of unseizability, listing assets that, as a rule, cannot be seized, such as salaries, wages, remuneration, retirement benefits and pensions, among others.


This rule of unseizability is necessary to guarantee the debtor's constitutional rights, aiming to protect, in a broad sense, the dignity of the human person, provided for in article 5 of the Federal Constitution, preserving his or her family's livelihood.

It is worth remembering that the rule contained in this same article does not aim to protect the debtor from continuing to default, making his assets unseizable, but rather to guarantee the protection of his constitutional rights.

However, legal practitioners created the principle of relativizing unseizability, provided for in paragraph 2 of that same article, which guarantees the possibility of garnishing wages to pay alimony, as well as amounts exceeding 50 monthly minimum wages.

Through a judgment, the STJ mitigated this precept, consolidating the possibility of seizing the debtor's salary funds to pay rent debt, as long as the minimum is preserved to guarantee their livelihood.

In the ruling, it was declared unfair for the landlord of a residential property to bear the expenses of the debtor tenant, since the satisfaction of lease credits makes up the normal family budget of any citizen, being settled through their monthly remuneration.

Furthermore, if unseizability were maintained, this would bring too much harm to social relations, given the non-granting of credits to common tenants, who always live on their limited salaries.

Analyzing the principle of relativizing the unseizability of wages, respecting, including, the constitutional precepts of reasonableness and proportionality, the decision was coherent, because it was confirmed that the unseizability of assets is not intended to protect debtors, but, rather, to protect their constitutional rights, inherent to ordinary citizens.



Finally, it never hurts to remember that the law guarantees creditor satisfaction, but not at all costs. However,  in cases of rental for housing, the lessor/creditor cannot bear the burden of a frustrated business, as the lessee/debtor fails to bear the expenses incurred under the rented property. As previously stated, credit of a rental nature makes up the normal family budget of any citizen, which is why the landlord himself routinely depends on rent subsidies to make up his monthly income, in other words, it is necessary to preserve the subsistence of everyone involved in the contractual relationship signed, thus ensuring the constitutional rights inherent to both parties.