Post by messi05 on Jan 23, 2024 22:58:55 GMT -5
An agreement signed directly between the bank so that loan installments are deducted directly from the current account in which the client receives his salary cannot be limited by the Court. This is because it is not reasonable to apply the limitation arbitrarily to a specific freely agreed loan contract, decided the 4th Panel of the Superior Court of Justice. The judged case is from a retired military man who had a debt of around R$115,000 with Banco do Brasil, resulting from interest on a special check.
He then signed a debt renegotiation contract, to Buy Phone Number List be paid in 85 installments of just over R$2,500. However, he was dissatisfied with the deductions, around 50% of his retirement, made to pay the debt. Contractual imbalance The lower court considered the client's request partially valid and limited the current account discount to the amount of 30% of their net salaries. The bank and the client appealed to the São Paulo Court of Justice, which dismissed both appeals. reproduction The retiree maintained, in the action, that the Constitution provides for salary protection, with intentional retention constituting a crime.
reproduction At the STJ, the client claimed that the relationship with the bank is one of consumption and that the contractual imbalance is characterized, as the contract is of adhesion, pre-drafted. He maintained that the Constitution provides for salary protection, with intentional retention constituting a crime. He further claimed that the Code of Civil Procedure establishes that salaries, allowances, wages, salaries, remunerations and retirement benefits are absolutely unseizable, and asserted that the fact of having authorized the discounts does not eliminate the prohibition on the bank from deducting a percentage to pay the contractual payments, requiring the holder's authorization to deduct the loan contract from the payroll.
He then signed a debt renegotiation contract, to Buy Phone Number List be paid in 85 installments of just over R$2,500. However, he was dissatisfied with the deductions, around 50% of his retirement, made to pay the debt. Contractual imbalance The lower court considered the client's request partially valid and limited the current account discount to the amount of 30% of their net salaries. The bank and the client appealed to the São Paulo Court of Justice, which dismissed both appeals. reproduction The retiree maintained, in the action, that the Constitution provides for salary protection, with intentional retention constituting a crime.
reproduction At the STJ, the client claimed that the relationship with the bank is one of consumption and that the contractual imbalance is characterized, as the contract is of adhesion, pre-drafted. He maintained that the Constitution provides for salary protection, with intentional retention constituting a crime. He further claimed that the Code of Civil Procedure establishes that salaries, allowances, wages, salaries, remunerations and retirement benefits are absolutely unseizable, and asserted that the fact of having authorized the discounts does not eliminate the prohibition on the bank from deducting a percentage to pay the contractual payments, requiring the holder's authorization to deduct the loan contract from the payroll.