The Third Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) ruled that it is possible to seize rights acquired through a promise of purchase and sale agreement, even without registration of the agreement, with the claimant being the seller and owner of the property in question.
The case analyzed involved a property seller who sought to seize the buyer’s rights after the buyer failed to pay promissory notes stipulated in the sales contract. The lower court denied the request based on the lack of registration of the contract and the fact that the property was still in the seller’s name. This decision was upheld by the Court of Justice of Minas Gerais (TJ/MG).
In the appeal filed with the STJ, the seller argued that registration of the contract is not necessary and that the property still being in her name should not prevent the seizure of rights.
The rapporteur of the case, Justice Nancy Andrighi, highlighted that there is no legal restriction on the seizure of rights arising from a promise of purchase and sale agreement, even if the claimant is the seller or owner of the property and even in the absence of registration of the agreement.
The minister also emphasized that the lack of registration of the contract does not prevent attachment, as acquisitive rights can be attached regardless. She further noted that the right of acquisition arises with registration, but the personal right already exists before that, allowing payment to be demanded between the parties.
The rapporteur emphasized that the seizure of acquisitive rights can occur in relation to any property right, without any special requirements. She emphasized that this possibility of seizure avoids placing the seller at a disadvantage compared to other creditors.
Thus, the Third Panel of the STJ allowed the seizure of rights acquired through the purchase and sale promise agreement, even without registration of the contract and even when the claimant is the seller and owner of the property.
