The Third Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) unanimously denied an appeal that discussed whether assets accumulated through the exclusive effort of only one of the partners, in a period prior to the entry into force of Law 9,278/96 – which regulated the stable union –, should be divided proportionally among the heirs in the event of the death of one of the partners.
The Panel upheld the ruling issued by the Court of Justice of Goiás (TJGO), which found that there was no evidence demonstrating the common effort, an essential requirement to declare the equal division of assets acquired prior to the enactment of the law that regulated the stable union.
In addition, for the Goiás court, granting the request would constitute a violation of an acquired right and of a perfected legal act and, by reaching the assets of third parties, would cause legal uncertainty.
You may also be interested in:
The real right of habitation in a stable union does not allow renting out the property
In the dissolution of a stable union, closed private pension is not divisible
Justice Villas Bôas Cueva, rapporteur of the appeal at the STJ, concluded that the TJGO’s decision was correct, emphasizing that “the national legal order, save for rare exceptions, does not admit the retroactivity of rules in order to reach or modify legal situations already consolidated. Therefore, as a rule, the alteration of the property regime has ex nunc effect.”
Stable union – individual effort
The proceedings were initiated by exclusive descendants of the now-deceased partner of the defendant, with whom the respondent lived for 60 years in a relationship that, under the legislation of the time, was called a de facto partnership.
The plaintiffs sought the Judiciary, alleging that they were entitled, as inheritance, to a portion of real estate assets in the possession of their ascendant’s partner that would have been acquired within the scope of the stable union.
Having this right recognized at the first instance, the judge ordered the division of 50% of the assets in whose acquisition the deceased had taken part. Upon appealing to the state court, the former partner alleged that the properties in her possession were the fruit of her individual effort, and should not be considered for inventory purposes, a ground accepted by the second instance, when it reversed the decision.
Distinct institutions
The STJ, in analyzing the appeal of the alleged heirs, found that the presumption of common effort, typical of the stable union, did not reach the case under discussion, since the law that established this regime was enacted at a time subsequent to the facts.
It also took into account that the individual collaboration of each party in the acquisition and administration of their respective assets had not been proven, as established by the state court.
In his vote, Justice Villas Bôas Cueva stated that the TJGO interpreted the case well by clearing up the confusion regarding the concepts of stable union and de facto partnership, autonomous and distinct institutions, especially in relation to the presumption of common effort, typical of the stable union and inapplicable to the de facto partnership.
“Therefore, in the present case, there can be no question of division by reason of the absence of intent in the common building of assets and because it cannot be admitted that the respondent be obliged to divide assets, in principle her own, which she acquired throughout her life through personal effort, with someone with whom she has no kinship whatsoever,” the Justice concluded.
Source: STJ
← Back to blog