After having their real estate property attached, a debtor brought suit before the Courts seeking to release it, alleging that it was their sole property and place of residence and, for that reason, would be protected as a family asset. However, the family asset may be attached when the debtor attempts to evade the collection. And that is exactly what happened.
On the basis of that understanding, the Single Court of Gurupi (TO) set aside the unattachability of the asset, on account of the debtor’s abuse of right, who was attempting to defraud a tax foreclosure proceeding.
The Office of the Attorney General of the Union (AGU) pointed out that, after being served in the foreclosure action, the debtor disposed of two properties in 2012 in order to acquire a single one, in which they came to reside so as to characterize it as a family asset.
According to the attorneys, the transactions were carried out with two objectives: to prevent its attachment and to avoid paying what is being charged to them.
The federal prosecutors alleged that this case involved bad faith and abuse of right and argued that the legal protection of the unattachability of the family asset should be set aside. The Courts of Tocantins accepted the arguments presented by the AGU and upheld the attachment of the property.
Sources: Conjur and Press Office of the AGU
← Back to blog