In June, the fourth class of the Court of Justice (STJ) has altered a decision of the Court of Justice of Rio de Janeiro (TJRJ) that rejected the search and seizure of mobile well alienated fiducily, That is, given warranty as a debt payment. Justice Fluminense had founded the decision in the fact that the debtor would not have been located at the address informed in the financing agreement.

The financial institution has resorted to STJ by sustaining, among other points, which it is for the financed to inform the institution any change of address , whether for a contractual obligation, whether as an attitude of good faith and can not Debtor benefit from your conduct. He also claimed the existence of the license certificate by making the notification dispatch and the absence of delivery by the exclusive fault of the debtor.

" STJ assigned the obligation to keep your address up to date until the extinction of the Mobile Bundance Agreement, guaranteed by judicial disposal. The decision consecrates the principle of confidence arising from the general good faith clause applicable to all parts of the contractual relationship. As it was applicable to the procedural nature, the consequences from noncompliance with the address update obligation can only be imputed to the debtor. From the judgment, STJ consolidated the understanding that Mora stems from the simple maturity of the obligations and that, for its proof, it is enough to send notification to the address of the debtor indicated in the contract ",

Observe Bruna Silva Franceschi , Carpena lawyers associated.

Cited process : re-sp 1592422