The 4th Commercial Law Chamber of the Court of Justice of Santa Catarina (TJSC), in Appeal No. 5086658-48.2025.8.24.0930, reported by Justice Tulio Pinheiro and decided on April 28, 2026, rejected the automatic inclusion of a non-signatory spouse as a defendant in the enforcement of a housing financing agreement. The court reaffirmed that the sharing of marital assets, by itself, does not authorize the subjective expansion of enforcement proceedings, requiring instead an enforceable instrument directly linked to the party being pursued, proof of a concrete benefit, or consent to the contract.

Relevance:

This understanding has a direct impact on married individuals who share assets. The decision confirms that whether or not a person signs a contract makes all the difference: someone who did not sign cannot be judicially charged as if they were a debtor. The creditor must prove that the spouse benefited from the debt or agreed to it; simply pointing to the couple’s property regime is not enough.

For asset planning, the precedent reinforces a practical lesson: the decision to sign, or not sign, a contract has concrete consequences for the financial exposure of the entire family. In financing agreements, loans, or significant credit transactions, it is important to carefully assess who appears as a party and what risks are involved.

Source: Special Committee on Banking Law · OAB/SP. Available at: linkedin.com/posts/comissão-especial-de-direito-bancário-oab-sp.