Background
Banco do Brasil challenged an individual proceeding to liquidate and enforce a collective judgment arising from a civil public action over inflation-related losses on savings accounts. The enforcement court rejected the bank’s objections, ordered the case to proceed using the creditor’s stated amount, and awarded attorney’s fees equal to 10% of the judgment.
The São Paulo Court of Justice partly considered the bank’s interlocutory appeal and denied relief on the issues it reached. It upheld the standing of savings account holders who had not belonged to the Brazilian Consumer Protection Institute (IDEC), the availability of the beneficiary’s home forum, use of the liquidation procedure under Article 509 of the Code of Civil Procedure, accrual of default interest from service in the collective action, monetary adjustment under the São Paulo court’s Practical Table, monthly compensatory interest, and attorney’s fees for the contested liquidation proceeding. The bank then filed a special appeal in the Superior Court of Justice.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Panel unanimously declined to hear the special appeal. Applying STJ Theme 948 and Precedent Statement 83, it treated the nonmember account holder’s standing as settled: beneficiaries of a successful collective action brought by an association as procedural substitute may liquidate and enforce the judgment regardless of association membership. The bank’s challenge to the liquidation procedure was inadmissible for lack of appellate interest because the state court had recognized the procedure the bank said was required.
The court also left the remaining rulings intact. Under STJ Theme 685, default interest began when the bank was served in the collective action, not in the individual enforcement proceeding. The São Paulo Practical Table could be used because the judgment did not prohibit it. Reviewing the state court’s interpretation that the collective judgment authorized monthly compensatory interest would require reconsideration of the record, barred by STJ Precedent Statement 7, while the proposed end date for that interest had not been preserved below. Attorney’s fees were permissible because the liquidation was contested. The STJ additionally increased the fees against Banco do Brasil by two percentage points over the amount previously awarded, subject to statutory limits and any applicable legal-aid ruling.
Key Takeaways
- A beneficiary need not have belonged to IDEC to pursue individual liquidation and enforcement of the collective judgment.
- Default interest runs from service of process in the underlying collective action, and the São Paulo Practical Table may supply monetary-adjustment indices when the judgment does not forbid its use.
- Contested liquidation of a collective judgment may support a fee award, while unpreserved issues and challenges requiring reinterpretation of the judicial title may be procedurally barred on special appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces established STJ rules governing individual recovery under collective judgments for savings-account inflation losses. It preserves access to enforcement for nonmembers of the association that brought the collective action and prevents the interest clock from restarting with each beneficiary’s individual proceeding.
It also illustrates the procedural limits of a special appeal. Although the bank raised numerous objections concerning liquidation, interest, monetary adjustment, and fees, the STJ did not conduct a merits review where precedent already controlled, the bank lacked appellate interest, the issue had not been preserved, or resolution would require reexamining the record or the state court’s interpretation of the judgment.