In the judgment of AREsp 2,174,427, the STJ reaffirmed the guidance that the sale of property that serves as the residence of the defendant and his family after the constitution of the tax credit does not constitute fraud of execution, and the property must be maintained as unattachable.
According to the understanding of the STJ, housing protection has constitutional support, with family property being covered by absolute non-attachability, in accordance with the legislation, and being immune to the effects of execution.
As highlighted by the STJ jurisprudence, if the fraud were recognized, the property would return to the debtor’s assets and would be protected by non-attachability, since it would maintain its character
of family property.
In this regard, the STJ granted the appeal of the contributing debtor to reinstate the ruling that recognized the unseizability of the asset.
