The extension of a rural credit debt is a right of the debtor, according to Precedent 298 of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ). On the basis of this understanding, Judge Leila Aparecida Montilha, of the Civil Court of Castro (PR), ordered, in a preliminary injunction, that a bank refrain from collecting from a farmer the debt he had incurred.
According to the case records, the farmer entered into rural credit agreements with a bank. However, in 2023, he suffered R$ 3.9 million in losses to his wheat, soybean, and corn crops due to adverse climate conditions, such as droughts and abrupt temperature variations. This caused him to fall behind on two installments of the loan.
He asked the bank to postpone the maturity of the installments, but the institution refused. The rural producer then filed a lawsuit against the financial institution, arguing that he has the right to the extension of the installments, based on the case law of the STJ and on the theory of unforeseeability (teoria da imprevisão).
The plaintiff also argued that the agreement carried annual interest above the ceiling established by the Usury Law (Lei da Usura).
The farmer requested the extension of the maturities set out in the rural credit notes for a term of five years, with the maturity of the installments redistributed into five successive annual payments. He also requested that he be prohibited from being entered into registries of defaulters.
Extraordinary losses
The judge first assessed that the agreement carried interest above the 12% per year established by the Usury Law. The magistrate also agreed with the argument that Precedent 298 of the STJ permits the lengthening of debt arising from rural credit.
She also took into consideration a report prepared by an agronomist, attached to the case file, which proves that the crop losses were extraordinary. Thus, she decided to suspend all collection measures against the debtor and to order that the bank not enter him into credit protection agencies.
“The danger of harm is evidenced by the imminence of the contractual maturities and by the substantial negative balance in the plaintiff’s account. The absence of an urgent measure may result in the enforcement of the mortgage guarantees over the rural property essential to the family’s productive activity, in addition to the possible entry into restrictive credit registries,” the judge wrote.
Attorney Glauber Ortolan, partner at the firm Lassori Advogados, represented the rural producer in the lawsuit.
← Back to blog