Background
The Vice Presidency of the Espírito Santo State Court of Justice refused to admit the parties’ special appeal on three grounds: there was no violation of Article 1,022 of the Code of Civil Procedure; STJ Precedent 83 applied; and STJ Precedent 7 barred review.
The STJ Presidency then declined to consider the resulting appeal because the appellants had not specifically challenged every ground supporting the state court’s inadmissibility ruling, triggering STJ Precedent 182. Iolanda Cezar Morello, Volberdorio Morello, and Hermes Morello filed an internal appeal, arguing that they had adequately addressed the grounds for inadmissibility.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Panel unanimously denied the internal appeal. It held that a party seeking STJ review must specifically contest each independent ground on which the lower court refused to admit the special appeal. Here, the appellants did not present an argument addressing the finding that Article 1,022 had not been violated.
The court explained that the principle requiring a reasoned engagement with the appealed decision is an admissibility requirement: merely asserting a legal theory favorable to the appellant does not suffice. Under Article 932(III) of the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure, the reporting judge must decline to consider an appeal that fails to challenge the decision’s grounds specifically. The court added that overcoming STJ Precedent 83 requires comparing the case with current STJ precedents to show that the lower court’s position diverges from STJ case law.
Key Takeaways
- An appeal seeking to unlock a special appeal must specifically challenge every ground supporting the lower court’s refusal to admit it.
- Failure to address even one independent inadmissibility ground can prevent the STJ from considering the appeal under Article 932(III) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- A party contesting the application of STJ Precedent 83 should compare the case with current STJ decisions and demonstrate a divergence from the court’s jurisprudence.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the strict briefing discipline required for access to special-appeal review in Brazil. Counsel must respond directly and separately to every basis for inadmissibility; arguments directed only to selected grounds will not preserve the appeal.
It also clarifies that a general assertion of legal error does not satisfy the required engagement with the decision under review. Appellants must explain, with legally grounded reasoning, why each procedural or substantive basis for the ruling is wrong.