Recently, the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), in ruling on Resp 1,873,203, ruled that family property offered as security for a lease agreement cannot be seized. According to the STJ, the list of exceptions provided for in Article 3 of Law 8,009/90 is exhaustive and specifically mentions the surety bond type, not the surety bond type. Furthermore, the STJ ruled that the case did not constitute a mortgage, and even if it did, it would only be possible to seize a mortgage pledged as security for one’s own debt, which was not the case in this case.