By majority, 4th Panel of the STJ denies partial garnishment

[account_disabled]

As a rule, salaries and earnings cannot be seized, especially when they are modest amounts. With this understanding, the 4th Panel of the Superior Court of Justice, by majority, denied the request to relativize the unseizability rule.





The objective of the authors of the appeal was to withhold 30% of the salary of two guarantors to pay off debt relating to a property. However, according to the majority of ministers, the measure would threaten the maintenance of debtors and their families.



The appeal was filed in an eviction action for B2B Lead non-payment, combined with a collection action, which began 20 years ago. The defendants were the guarantors of the contract and were held responsible for the debts. The debt, around R$14,000 when the execution began, currently exceeds R$1 million.



As there were no assets to satisfy the obligation, the creditor asked the court to block the amounts in the guarantors' current account. Initially there was an online blockade, but it was overturned after the first instance judge verified that the blocked amounts corresponded to the guarantors' salaries, of around R$4,700, and were therefore unseizable.



The decision was confirmed by the Court of Justice of Minas Gerais, which added that it was not possible to determine whether there would be other discounts on the salaries of those executed, and there was a risk of imposing a blockade of amounts exceeding 30% of income, violating the guarantee of the existential minimum. .



At the STJ, the judge called Lázaro Guimarães dismissed the special appeal, as he understood that the TJ-MG ruling was in accordance with the court's jurisprudence, which states that the seizure of the debtor's salary funds is prohibited, except for the payment of debts of food character.



After an appeal, the issue was analyzed by the 4th Panel of the STJ, which was divided. The rapporteur, judge called Lázaro Guimarães, reconsidered his decision and voted for the possibility of relativizing the unseizability rule. To this end, he cited court precedents in the sense that, observing the specific case, it is allowed to block part of the salaries, preserving enough to guarantee the dignified maintenance of the debtor and his family.



Predominant orientation

Minister Isabel Gallotti, whose vote was followed by the majority of the 4th Panel, disagreed. According to her, despite the aforementioned precedent, the TJ-MG's decision is in line with the STJ's predominant guidance that salaries and earnings are, as a rule, unseizable, especially when it comes to modest amounts as is the case in this case.







According to Galloti, this orientation should prevail as a rule, with relativization only being permitted in exceptional situations. "I highlight the possibility of a different solution in a very exceptional situation, including, among others, the hypothesis of large amounts, which, although formally labeled as food in nature, are professional fees of great economic importance, for example, clearly sufficient to fulfill the obligation, without causing harm to the maintenance of the debtor and his family, given the concrete situation to be assessed, case by case."



Minister Marco Buzzi agreed with Isabel Galloti's understanding. Citing precedents, the minister stated that the 4th Panel of the STJ consolidated the understanding that, as a rule, it is impossible to seize amounts received as subsidies, salaries, wages, remuneration, retirement benefits and pensions, with the exception of case when it is a seizure for the payment of alimony benefits.