Background
Jardim Santo Antônio Incorporação Imobiliária SPE Ltda. and another party filed an internal appeal against a decision by the President of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ). That decision had declined to consider their appeal seeking review of the non-admission of a special appeal, applying STJ Precedent No. 182 because the appellants had not specifically challenged every ground supporting the lower court’s refusal to admit the special appeal.
The unchallenged grounds included the absence of a violation of a statutory provision and the failure to establish a divergence in case law. In their internal appeal, the appellants asserted generally that their earlier submissions clearly and adequately explained their disagreement with the ruling. The appellee opposed the internal appeal and requested a further increase in attorney fees.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Panel unanimously declined to consider the internal appeal. It held that Article 1,021, paragraph 1, of Brazil’s 2015 Code of Civil Procedure required the appellants to challenge specifically the ground of the decision under review—namely, that their earlier appeal had deficiently addressed the reasons for denying admission of the special appeal. Instead, they merely expressed disagreement without demonstrating where they had adequately contested each relevant ground.
The court characterized the internal appeal as manifestly inadmissible and imposed a fine equal to 1% of the updated amount in controversy under Article 1,021, paragraph 4. Under paragraph 5, filing any further appeal is conditioned on prior payment of that amount. The court declined to increase attorney fees again because the court of origin had already set them at the maximum level.
Key Takeaways
- An internal appeal must specifically confront the grounds of the challenged decision; a general assertion that the decision was wrong is insufficient.
- The STJ treats the specific-challenge requirement as an application of the adversarial principle of appellate argument, not as a mere procedural technicality.
- A unanimously rejected, manifestly inadmissible internal appeal may trigger a fine, and any further appeal may depend on prior payment of that fine.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that parties seeking review in the STJ must address every independent basis supporting an adverse admissibility ruling. If a ground remains specifically unchallenged, it remains intact and can prevent the court from considering the appeal.
The ruling also demonstrates the financial and procedural consequences of filing an internal appeal that does not engage with the actual reasoning of the decision under review: a percentage-based fine and a prepayment condition for further appellate proceedings.