Owner may have property seized for condominium to pay debt to third party, sa...

nila44

When the condominium fails to pay the amount owed to a third party, the nature of the  propter rem obligation  of the condominium debts may justify the redirection of an execution to the owners of the individual units, even if the property is a family asset and still acquired after the judgment that recognized the debt.


With this understanding, the 4th Panel of the Superior Court of Justice recognized the seizure of a condominium owner's property as a way of ensuring the payment of a condominium debt, within the limit of its ideal fraction. The court ruling had forced the condominium to compensate a person who became disabled after being hit by a piece of the facade cladding, which collapsed due to poor conservation of the building.

Gustavo Lima/STJ
Luis Felipe Salomão stated that this type of situation allows even the protection of the only family asset to be removed.
Gustavo Lima/STJ
Initially, 20% of the value of the condominium shares were seized. After the condominium suspended the retention of this money, the author requested redirection against the condominium owners.

One of them claimed that he could not B2B Lead be held responsible for the debt, since he bought the apartment after the judgment was issued against the condominium, and maintained that the seizure could not fall on his property as it was the family's only property, protected by Law 8.009/ 90.

According to the case's rapporteur, Minister Luis Felipe Salomão, it is not possible to exempt the appellant from the obligation on the grounds that the apartment was acquired after the debt was incurred. He stated that condominium debt is an obligation  propter rem , that is, of whoever holds the rights to the property.

“In the building condominium, the owner of the autonomous unit and co-owner of the common parts exercises all the powers inherent to the domain, but, in return, is subject to the regulation of the exercise of these same rights, due to the needs imposed by collective coexistence”, declared the rapporteur.



Thus, “it is certain that, among all the duties of condominium owners, that which concerns the apportionment of condominium expenses is, without a doubt, the most important, as it is directly related to the viability of the existence of the condominium itself”.

Family asset
Salomão rejected the claim that the property could not be seized because it was the family's only asset. He considered that the hypothesis of an exception to the rule is valid, as it would be contradictory to deny the removal of protection when the  propter rem nature  of the debt justifies the redirection of execution.