The protection of execution of financial obligation based on a judicial executiveinstrument, from Law 11,232, dated of Nov. 22, 2005, on

Authors

  • José Bernardo Ramos Boeira PUCRS

Keywords:

Compliance with the award. Financial obligation. Award liquidation. Motion to deny. Expropriation modalities. Motion to stay, the compulsory conveyance of property, the private disposal and the auction sale.

Abstract

 

From the changes dictated by Law 11,232, dated of Nov 22, 2005 on, the execution of a financial obligation based on judicial executive instruments became a stage of the same proceeding, when the award is not originated from the cognizance procedure. Thus, the plaintiff and, in case of counterclaim, the defendant, claim the cognizance, the issue and the execution as stages of the same civil procedural relationship. In this context, we examine the procedure related to the award liquidation, improving the executive instrument as one of its characterizing elements, which is the liquidity. Therefore, if the legal presupposition for the execution is formally met in full (article 586CPC – Code of Civil Proceeding), the creditor should claim the execution upon an express requirement of compliance with the obligations, under the penalty of fine, attachment and assessment of assets enough to guarantee the execution. After approaching the deposit in execution for debt, we examined the defense of the judgment debtor, for which the classical remedy is a motion to deny, without prejudice of a pre-execution exception whenever it is possible to demonstrate the nullity of the execution. We also comment the expropriation modalities, as well as the classical remedy to reverse expropriation deeds, which are motions to stay the compulsory conveyance of property, the private disposal or the auction sale.

Author Biography

José Bernardo Ramos Boeira, PUCRS

 

Professor de Direito Processual Civil e mestre em Direito pela PUCRS. Advogado.

Issue

Section

Articles