Renting to third parties does not negate the exemption from seizure of the family's only property.

The Eighth Chamber of the Superior Labor Court ordered the release of the seizure of a residential property that, although rented, was the only family property of the former partner of Tecno Power Equipamentos Ltda., in Contagem (MG). According to the Chamber, the guarantee of unseizability cannot be disregarded because the property is rented to third parties, as the law does not provide for such an exception.

Rent

The former partner reported that his property was seized after a failed attempt to include company assets in the execution of the judgment. The Regional Labor Court of the 3rd Region (MG) upheld the measure, understanding that it was not a family home, since the property had remained unoccupied for several months and was subsequently rented out, without proof that the rental income was intended for the family's sustenance.

Unemployment

In his appeal to the TST (Superior Labor Court), the debtor argued that the rental income was intended to supplement his family income because he was unemployed.

Housing

The rapporteur for the appeal, Minister Dora Maria da Costa, emphasized that, according to the jurisprudence of the Superior Labor Court (TST), Law 8.009/1990 considers as family property, for the purposes of unseizability, the only property used by the couple or family unit for their residence and does not provide as an exception to the guarantee the fact that the property is rented. "The immediate aim pursued by the law is the right and fundamental protection of housing, the preservation of the family unit and the protection of the person (articles 6, caput, 226, caput, and 1, III, of the Federal Constitution)," she noted.

The decision was unanimous.

Case Number: RR-4500-13.2000.5.03.0031

SOURCE: Legal Bulletin