???? Free Package of Free Mind Maps: https://direitodesenhado.com.br/bonus... ????Access + 370 Drawn Videos (R$29.64/month on the annual plan): https://direitodesenhado.com.br/direi... ????Package with Civil Procedure Mind Maps (R$47.00): https://hotm.art/FD7URd ???? Official Whatsapp Channel with exclusive content, updates, first-hand news and much more. To access, just click on the link: https://bit.ly/3t20Qnd ???? Learn more about Execution Principles: https://direitodesenhado.com.br/princ... ???? Video on Execution Principles: • Execution Principles (Civil Proceedings... ________________________________________________________________________ Summary: It is known that wages are unattachable, admitting some exceptions in the CPC. However, is it possible to seize wages outside the scope of these exceptions pointed out by the legislator in the CPC??? On April 19, 2023, the STJ took a very specific position in the judgment of EREsp 1.874.222. It was about the relaxation of the rule that prohibited the seizure of the debtor's wages. Currently, the law defines that wages are unattachable, that is, they cannot be used to fulfill a given obligation recognized in an extrajudicial or judicial executive title. However, there are exceptions, such as, for example, in cases of alimony or when the debtor's remuneration exceeds 50 minimum wages. See what is provided for in art. 833 Art. 833. The following are unattachable: (...) IV - wages, subsidies, salaries, wages, remunerations, retirement benefits, pensions, annuities and pensions, as well as amounts received through the generosity of third parties and intended for the support of the debtor and his family, the earnings of a self-employed worker and the fees of a liberal professional, except for § 2; § 2 of art. 833 of the CPC, in turn, clarifies the following: Art. 833 (...) § 2 The provisions of items IV and X of the caput do not apply to the case of seizure for payment of alimony, regardless of its origin, as well as to amounts exceeding 50 (fifty) monthly minimum wages, and the seizure must comply with the provisions of art. 528, § 8, and art. 529, § 3. The STJ, in the judgment of EREsp 1,874,222, expanded the possibility of salary seizure by relativizing the provisions of § 2 of art. 833 of the CPC. In a judgment of divergence embargoes, the Special Court of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) decided that, in exceptional situations, it is possible to relax the rule that protects salaries from being used to pay debts that are not of alimony nature. This can be done regardless of the amount received by the debtor, as long as it is guaranteed an amount that ensures a dignified life for him and his family. This means that it does not matter if the debtor receives less than 50 minimum wages… Justice João Otávio de Noronha, the rapporteur of the case, highlighted that this flexibility should only be applied when other means of enforcement prove unfeasible and that the impact of the decision on the debtor's income should be assessed. For the STJ, the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) establishes that the non-attachability of wages is relative. This means that, in certain circumstances, part of the wage can be seized to pay debts. The decision to seize must take into account the need to not excessively harm the debtor and to ensure that the creditor receives what is owed to him, both principles based on the dignity of the human person. For the STJ, the rule of non-attachability can be relaxed, regardless of the nature of the debt or the amount received by the debtor. However, the seizure cannot compromise the dignified subsistence of the debtor and his family. The relativization of the rule is exceptional and should only be applied when other means of enforcement are unfeasible. In addition, it is necessary to assess the impact of the seizure on the dignified subsistence of the debtor and his family. The CPC allows for the non-seizability of seizure to be mitigated when the debtor receives amounts exceeding 50 minimum wages. However, this does not prevent the rule from being considered in cases where the amounts received are lower. Justice João Otávio de Noronha criticized the establishment of a limit of 50 minimum wages, considering it far from the Brazilian reality. He argued that this limit makes the provision almost useless and does not reflect the true purpose of the non-seizability. How can this limit be revised to better reflect the country's economic reality? The decision, therefore, seeks to adapt the CPC to the country's economic reality, making the provision more useful. #civilprocess, #designedlaw, #abcivilprocess, #abclass, #abstudy, #civilprocesscompetition, #abtest