‎Brazil News

During the proceedings, it was demonstrated that the author was not aware of the proceedings until he was notified by a court officer.

From the Editors

 

Monday, November 25, 2024

 

The 3rd Civil Court of the Central Court of São Paulo dismissed, without ruling on the merits, a lawsuit against a banking institution and ordered the attorney responsible to pay the legal costs and attorneys fees, set at 20% of the value of the case. The decision was handed down by Judge Mônica Di Stasi, based on article 485, item IV, of the CPC, after finding that the plaintiff was unaware that the lawsuit had been filed.

 

The action had been filed with allegations of improper contracting of a credit card with margin reserve, when the objective was to obtain a loan. The plaintiff sought the cancellation of the contract, the return of the discounted amounts and the offset of any balance in his favor.

 

In its defense, the banking institution maintained the regularity of the contract and pointed out that the debts were due to the minimum payment of invoices.

 

During the proceedings, it was demonstrated that the plaintiff was not aware of the lawsuit until he was notified by a court officer. The plaintiff clarified that he had signed a power of attorney to analyze loan agreements, but did not authorize the filing of the lawsuit due to failure to pay a previously agreed fee. In view of this, the judge considered the legal representation irregular and dismissed the lawsuit.

 

In addition to the termination of the action, the ruling ordered the issuance of official letters to the OAB/SP Committee for the Oversight of Professional Activities of Lawyers and to NUMOPEDE - Demand Profile Monitoring Center to investigate the lawyer's conduct.

 

The judge also applied the principle of causality, excluding the author from any financial responsibility and directing the payment of costs and fees to the responsible lawyer.

 

 

Lawyer convicted of filing lawsuit without clients authorization.

The Dias Costa Advogados law firm is defending the bank.

Case: 1099733-10.2023.8.26.0100

 

Reminder: Comments do not represent the opinion of Migalhas; the responsibility lies with the author of the message.

 

Bad faith

Judge denies lawsuit against bank and sentences plaintiff and lawyer for bad faith

Decision highlights the author's lack of initiative in seeking an administrative solution before resorting to the Judiciary, more than three years later.

From the Editors

 

Saturday, July 27, 2024

 

Updated July 29, 2024 3:19 PM

 

The plaintiff and her lawyer were jointly and severally convicted of bad faith litigation. The decision was handed down by Judge Francisco Soares de Souza, of the 11th Court of the JEC of Manaus/AM, when he dismissed the lawsuit filed against Banco Bradesco.

 

The judge understood that the author and her lawyer acted in bad faith by resorting to the courts without first seeking an administrative resolution to the issue.

 

 

Judge denies lawsuit against bank and convicts client and lawyer for bad faith.

 

Predatory litigation: Judge dismisses lawsuit and convicts lawyer for bad faith

 

According to the case records, the plaintiff questioned a debit of R$6,343.49 in her checking account, claiming that the transaction had not been requested or authorized. However, the debit occurred on July 1, 2020, and the client only contested it on February 27, 2024, through a lawsuit. In its defense, Banco Bradesco argued that the debit referred to the early cancellation of a loan agreement previously signed by the client.

 

When analyzing the case, the judge considered that the client did not demonstrate that she had acted quickly to contest the debt, which led to the initial requests being dismissed.

 

The decision highlighted the author's lack of initiative in seeking an administrative solution before resorting to the Judiciary, which compromised the credibility of her allegations. According to the judge, the situation is in accordance with article 80 of the CPC, which defines a litigant in bad faith as someone who: II - alters the truth of the facts; III - uses the process to achieve an illegal objective.

 

It is not forgotten that everyone has the right to access justice, but this right cannot be exercised in an abusive and frivolous manner, therefore, the bad faith litigation of the plaintiff in this lawsuit is evident, as she comes to court to claim damages caused by her own conduct, denying a fact that she knows to have existed and trying to mislead the court, with the conscious objective of obtaining illicit advantage through the use of the judicial process, and should therefore be sentenced .