Decision prevents the auction of a property and ensures equality among creditors, reinforcing the application of the over-indebtedness law and prioritizing the collective payment of debts.
On May 5, 2025, the 16th Civil Court of the district of Belo Horizonte, presided over by Judge Adriana Garcia Rabelo, issued a decision that deserves close and in-depth analysis, both for its technical content and its importance in consolidating the over-indebtedness law within the Brazilian legal framework.
This concerns case number 10063925320258130024, in which a consumer sought to prevent the extrajudicial auction of his residential property, conducted by Banco Inter, the fiduciary creditor.
The controversy is situated in a context of judicially recognized over-indebtedness. The plaintiff had previously filed a specific debt renegotiation action based on article 104-A of the Consumer Protection Code (CDC). This action already had a preliminary decision limiting the monthly deductions from his salary to 30% to preserve his existential minimum. The contract with Banco Inter, at the center of this case, was precisely one of the financial commitments included in the global renegotiation request.
Thus, the bank’s attempt to consolidate ownership of the property and auction it off was not an isolated act. It was an individual enforcement that, if carried out, would seriously compromise the effectiveness of the consumer’s entire financial reorganization process.
And that was exactly the judge’s understanding—she accurately noted that it would not be possible to treat the contract in question in isolation without affecting the others.
The decision rigorously fulfills the integrative function of the over-indebtedness law, which aims to allow consumers in prolonged financial crisis to renegotiate their debts globally through judicial mediation, without undue privileges to certain creditors.
The logic is simple yet powerful: no creditor can unilaterally seize the consumer’s assets if these are tied to a recovery plan that covers all obligations.
The judge’s analysis also stood out for its technical reasoning. From a procedural standpoint, formal flaws were noted in the fiduciary property consolidation process. The absence of valid personal notice to cure the default—as required by Article 26 of Law 9.514/1997—was deemed plausible, based on the allegations and documents presented. This flaw, if confirmed, would undermine the validity of the entire extrajudicial enforcement, including the auction.
Another relevant aspect was the lack of proper information provided to the consumer about the updated debt amount, preventing the exercise of his right of first refusal, as stipulated by Article 27, §2-B of the same law. This omission directly violates the principles of transparency and the right to information, both enshrined in the CDC as central elements of good faith in consumer relations.
But perhaps the most significant point of the decision lies in its sensitivity to the imminent risk of irreversible harm. The property auction was scheduled for the day after the decision. The judge recognized that losing the home would definitively compromise not just the consumer’s assets but also the very purpose of the over-indebtedness process. As highlighted in the decision: “Moreover, the loss of the property in the auction would compromise the possibility of renegotiating his debts in the over-indebtedness process, making his already recognized financial recovery even more difficult. The urgency is, therefore, clear and demands immediate judicial intervention to safeguard the alleged right.”
This passage reveals a deep understanding of the nature of the right at stake. It’s not just about protecting a material asset, but about preserving minimum conditions so the consumer can fulfill obligations with dignity. The existential minimum, more than a theoretical concept, takes concrete form when preventing a family from losing its home before having a chance to restructure its finances.
The decision is also notable for its caution. The judge emphasized that the auction suspension measure was reversible. If, at the end of the process, the consolidation procedure is found to be regular, the bank may conduct a new auction, without definitive prejudice to its guarantee. This balance demonstrates fairness between the parties’ interests, neither ignoring the creditor’s rights nor neglecting the consumer’s vulnerability.
The importance of this decision lies not in any supposed novelty but in the conscious and well-founded way in which the principles of over-indebtedness, objective good faith, the social function of contracts, and the existential minimum were applied together. The judge did not merely apply the law formally; she interpreted its provisions in light of constitutional principles governing private relations in contemporary Brazil.
At a time when there is still resistance to fully applying the over-indebtedness law, the decision in case number 10063925320258130024 is a significant example of how the judiciary can contribute to consolidating this new stage of Consumer Law.
By protecting the debtor without punishing the creditor, and by favoring collective negotiation over fragmented enforcements, this decision points to a fairer and more rational path in managing individual debt. It stands as an important precedent reinforcing the judiciary’s role as a guarantor of human dignity and a legal order oriented toward equity.