Post by account_disabled on Mar 10, 2024 20:25:54 GMT -7
Anyone who buys property involved in legal proceedings is subject to bearing the consequences, unless they can prove that they had no way of knowing about the existence of the dispute — and the burden of proof is entirely yours. The warning was made in the rd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice by Minister Nancy Andrighi. She was the rapporteur of an appeal whose author tried to avoid the loss of the apartment she had purchased from a bank. The latter, in turn, sold the property at auction, during a mortgage foreclosure.
In , Caixa Econômica Federal foreclosed on the debt of a couple in Rio de Janeiro and took their apartment to auction, with Banco Morada S/A being the successful bidder. The couple went to court and almost six years later managed to annul the auction.
An appeal was filed against the decision of the Federal Austria Phone Numbers List Regional Court of the nd Region, which had already agreed with the reinstatement of the couple (the original owners) in possession of the property. When making this decision, the TRF- observed that nothing prevented the buyer from taking compensation action against Banco Morada, both for the amount invested in the business and for any improvements made to the apartment
The Civil Procedure Code states that, when purchasing an asset under dispute, the court ruling extends its effects to the buyer. According to Minister Nancy Andrighi, this rule must be relaxed to protect the rights of the buyer who acted in good faith, “but only when it is evident that their conduct tended to effectively determine the possible litigation of the thing acquired”.
“It is not credible that the person who acquires property is unaware of the existence of the action distributed in the name of the owner, especially if the process involves the property itself”, added the rapporteur. She also said that “only a buyer who adopts minimum precautions for the legal security of his acquisition can be considered in good faith”.
The most serious thing in this case is that, although there was no record of the existence of the process with the registration of the apartment in the property registry, the purchase and sale contract still stated that the buyer had requested certificates from the judicial distributors, and was, in principle, aware of the pending issues regarding the property.
In , Caixa Econômica Federal foreclosed on the debt of a couple in Rio de Janeiro and took their apartment to auction, with Banco Morada S/A being the successful bidder. The couple went to court and almost six years later managed to annul the auction.
An appeal was filed against the decision of the Federal Austria Phone Numbers List Regional Court of the nd Region, which had already agreed with the reinstatement of the couple (the original owners) in possession of the property. When making this decision, the TRF- observed that nothing prevented the buyer from taking compensation action against Banco Morada, both for the amount invested in the business and for any improvements made to the apartment
The Civil Procedure Code states that, when purchasing an asset under dispute, the court ruling extends its effects to the buyer. According to Minister Nancy Andrighi, this rule must be relaxed to protect the rights of the buyer who acted in good faith, “but only when it is evident that their conduct tended to effectively determine the possible litigation of the thing acquired”.
“It is not credible that the person who acquires property is unaware of the existence of the action distributed in the name of the owner, especially if the process involves the property itself”, added the rapporteur. She also said that “only a buyer who adopts minimum precautions for the legal security of his acquisition can be considered in good faith”.
The most serious thing in this case is that, although there was no record of the existence of the process with the registration of the apartment in the property registry, the purchase and sale contract still stated that the buyer had requested certificates from the judicial distributors, and was, in principle, aware of the pending issues regarding the property.