Background
A purchaser sought termination of an agreement to buy Unit 1409 in the Station Bresser development after failing to obtain financing for the outstanding balance. The purchaser requested suspension of the installments, protection against adverse credit reporting, and repayment of 90% of the amounts paid, or alternatively 85% or 80%. The trial court terminated the agreement and ordered the developer to refund 80% in a single payment, adjusted for inflation from the date of each payment, with default interest beginning when the judgment became final.
The São Paulo Court of Justice initially allowed the developer to retain 50%. On reconsideration through motions for clarification, however, it found that the segregated-assets regime had ended following issuance of the occupancy certificate on June 24, 2024, and formal establishment of the condominium on September 4, 2024. It therefore reinstated the trial court’s 20% retention, finding that percentage sufficient in light of the circumstances, including the absence of proven administrative expenses and the purchaser’s non-occupation of the unit. The developer sought special review, requesting retention of 50%, or alternatively 25%, and monetary adjustment only from the filing of the action.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Panel unanimously declined to hear the special appeal. On retention, the STJ applied STF Precedent 283 because the developer had not specifically challenged independent grounds sufficient to sustain the state court’s judgment: the termination of the segregated-assets regime defeated the claim to the exceptional 50% retention under Article 67-A(5) of Law 4,591/1964, while the case-specific adequacy of 20% defeated the alternative request for 25%.
The STJ also refused to revisit the starting date for monetary adjustment. Under the court’s settled case law, adjustment of refunded real-estate installments runs from each payment because it merely preserves the money’s real value and is not a penalty or damages dependent on wrongdoing by the seller. Because the state court followed that rule, STJ Precedent 83 barred review. The asserted conflict among appellate decisions was consequently moot and, in any event, subject to the same bar. The STJ increased the developer’s appellate attorney-fee liability by 10% of the amount previously awarded, subject to statutory limits and any applicable legal-aid ruling.
Key Takeaways
- A special appeal will not be heard when the appellant fails to challenge each independent ground sufficient to support the judgment below.
- The STJ left intact the 20% retention because it did not reach the merits of the developer’s requests for 50% or 25% retention.
- When installments are refunded after termination of a real-estate purchase agreement, monetary adjustment runs from each payment, even if the termination was initiated by the purchaser and no wrongdoing by the seller was established.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the importance of addressing every dispositive ground in a Brazilian special appeal. Arguments about contractual enforceability or statutory retention percentages cannot secure review if the appellant leaves separate, sufficient findings unchallenged.
For real-estate termination disputes, the ruling also confirms the STJ’s distinction between inflation adjustment and default interest: adjustment preserves the value of each refunded payment from the date it was made, whereas the absence of prior seller default may justify interest beginning only when the judgment becomes final.