Ruling pointed to a discrepancy between the agreed-upon rate and the one applied in the credit contract.
Judge Marina Balester Mello de Godoy, of the 14th Civil Court of Santo Amaro/SP, ordered the recalculation of the installments of a personal loan agreement after finding that the interest rate applied by the financial institution did not match the rate originally agreed upon by the parties. Upon confirming the discrepancy, the judge ordered the correction of the installment amount and the double refund of the overpaid amounts.
The consumer stated that she had taken out a personal loan with an agreed monthly interest rate of 2.44%, but later discovered that the institution had applied a rate of 2.55% per month, which increased the installment amounts.
The financial institution, in turn, argued that the contract was for the amount of R$ 2,118.98 and claimed that all conditions were disclosed in advance. It also contended that the “Citizen’s Calculator” tool was not suitable for validating the calculations presented.
Upon analyzing the case, the judge emphasized that the contractual relationship is subject to the Consumer Protection Code (CDC), as established in Precedent 297 of the STJ (Superior Court of Justice). Based on the submitted documents, she determined that applying the 2.44% monthly rate to the contracted amount would result in a monthly installment of R$ 64.93, while the institution was charging R$ 66.02 — a difference of R$ 1.09 per installment.
The judge noted that although the “Citizen’s Calculator” does not include the total effective cost, it is an official tool provided by the Central Bank and is suitable for identifying discrepancies when compared to the contracted rate, particularly in the absence of a request for an accounting expert report or any specific technical objection from the institution.
When reviewing the request for a refund, the judge applied Article 42, sole paragraph, of the CDC and followed the consolidated understanding of the STJ in EAREsp 1.413.542, stating that a double refund is due whenever an undue charge violates the principle of objective good faith, regardless of proof of bad faith.
Based on these grounds, the judge ordered the recalculation of the installments and the double refund of the overpaid amounts, adjusted according to the São Paulo State Court’s Practical Table from each payment date and subject to interest at the Selic rate from the date of service of process.