A judgment handed down by the presiding judge of the 3rd Civil Court of Campo Grande, Juliano Rodrigues Valentim, granted a declaratory action for the dissolution of joint ownership with the collection of rent filed by a former partner in view of the inertia of the former partner in selling the property.
It can be inferred from the case records that, in March 2017, during a hearing in one of the Family Courts of the Capital, an agreement was approved between the parties of a proceeding for the recognition and dissolution of a stable union. In this agreement, it was determined that the couple’s residential property would be sold at market value and the amount obtained divided between the parties, in the proportion of 80% for the man and 20% for the woman.
In January 2018, since the former partner had still not put the property up for sale and, when approached, imposed obstacles to any negotiation, the woman notified him extrajudicially so that he would proceed with the disposal.
Since, even when notified, the former partner did nothing to promote the sale of the property, the former partner filed an action in court in July 2018, requesting the dissolution of the joint ownership with the judicial sale of the asset. She also requested that the defendant be ordered to pay rent from the extrajudicial notification until the effective dissolution of the joint ownership.
When summoned, the defendant alleged that he had not imposed obstacles to the sale of the asset, having even hired a real estate broker for its appraisal. He stated that he did not have the financial means to bear the purchase of the part belonging to the plaintiff and that there was no mention of the payment of rent or of amounts to be arbitrated, either in the agreement entered into in the action for the recognition and dissolution of the stable union, or in the extrajudicial notification.
In the judgment rendered, the judge emphasized that there is no doubt about the merit of the request for the dissolution of joint ownership, since, there being no consensus on the sale, its dissolution must occur through the judicial route.
“Therefore, considering the merit of the request for the dissolution of joint ownership, the plaintiff is entitled to the enjoyment claimed, since she remains without possession of the asset, in the proportion that belongs to her, and, furthermore, having to bear rental expenses (a fact not contested and, therefore, uncontroverted), while the plaintiff, in turn, remains in possession of the asset and reaping its fruits in their entirety, it being certain, pursuant to art. 1,319 of the Civil Code, that ‘Each co-owner is liable to the others for the fruits they received from the thing and for the damage they caused to it’”, the magistrate reasoned.
Thus, the judge determined the payment to the former partner of 20% of the amount that would be obtained from the rental of the property, from 60 days after the extrajudicial notification, that is, as of March 10, 2018, on the understanding that this would be a sufficient and reasonable period for the defendant to proceed with the disposal of the asset.
“Finally, the value of the rent must be calculated at the percentage of 0.5% (half percent) on the market value (valor venal) of the property, a percentage appropriate according to the rental market, and shall apply to the amount assessed in judicial appraisal, after due preclusion of the means of challenging it, since it is not possible to accept the request for the fixed amount deduced, given the challenge that occurred and the absence of elements to conclude as to its regularity”, he ruled.
Source: TJMS
← Back to blog