The attachment of rural income may reach part of the lease payments, but the property remains protected in the cases provided for by law.
The Third Panel of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ, Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice) has held that the attachment of rural income is possible in part. In practice, the creditor may seek a share of the lease payments relating to a smallholding, while the property itself remains exempt from attachment. The decision reinforces that the protection applies to the land, and not automatically to what it produces.
How the STJ distinguished the property from its fruits
The case concerned an area of less than four fiscal modules (módulos fiscais, the Brazilian unit of measurement for rural landholdings), farmed by the family. The State Court of Paraná had upheld the attachment of 30% of the amounts received under the lease. The Third Panel confirmed that approach.
The reasoning is straightforward. The law protects the small rural property, but does not provide that such protection extends to its fruits and income. Accordingly, the lease proceeds may be used to satisfy the debt, provided that enough remains for a dignified life.
The Justices treated that income as equivalent to the earnings of a self-employed worker. It therefore receives protection similar to that afforded to sums of a maintenance nature. In other words, full attachment tends to be set aside, while partial attachment is permitted.
What the rural debtor must demonstrate
The 30% rate was the one set in that particular case. It does not operate as a mandatory rule, and each judge assesses the specific circumstances. Moreover, the decision sets no deadlines and does not require any new regulation.
The central issue is the existential minimum. Where farming is the main source of livelihood, the debtor must prove that the deduction jeopardises the family’s subsistence. Without such proof, partial attachment tends to proceed.
For the creditor, the decision opens up a means of enforcement against small producers. The creditor may seek the attachment of part of the lease payments instead of attempting to reach the property itself. Even so, the limit set by the dignity of the judgment debtor must be respected.
In our view, this position helps to balance both sides of enforcement proceedings, but it depends on sound evidence being produced by both parties. It remains unclear whether the other Panels will follow the same line, although the decision refers to the understanding of the Court.
Read further legal news commented on by the firm and the articles by Moraes de Freitas Advogados.