Post by account_disabled on Mar 13, 2024 3:21:17 GMT -5
It cannot be said that it is impossible to sentence a fine for litigation in bad faith without a request from the opposing party, since article 81 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizes the magistrate, ex officio, to apply the penalty.
reproduction
Bank customer was sentenced by the TJ-SP to pay a fine for litigation in bad faith
This was understood by the 11th Chamber of Private Law of the Court of Justice of São Paulo when sentencing a bank customer to pay a fine for litigation in bad faith, corresponding to 1% of the value of the case. She went to court claiming the non-existence of a debt of R$291.57.
The bank stated that the debt B2B Lead arose from non-compliance with a credit card contract. The author did not challenge her signature on the document presented by the financial institution, which led the court of origin to dismiss the action as unfounded. She appealed to the TJ-SP, but the sentence was upheld.
“The plaintiff did not even challenge the signature on the credit card subscription proposal, nor did she specifically challenge the invoices presented by the defendant. In fact, the applicant simply maintained, in a generic way, that the documentation presented by the defendant was produced unilaterally and is not capable of proving the existence of the debt”, said the rapporteur, judge Renato Rangel Desinano.
The rapporteur stated that, if the author does not challenge the signing of the contract, it was her burden, at least, to clarify whether she used the card and which payments she actually made. “However, she did not do so, limiting her generic insurgency to formal aspects of the documentation presented by the defendant”, he added.
For Desinano, there was no illegal act carried out by the bank and, therefore, there is no need to talk about a declaration of non-existence of debt, nor about a sentence to pay compensation for moral damages. He also rejected the author's request to waive the fine due to bad faith litigation.
“The author stated in the initial petition that she “did not even enter into an obligation with the defendant with such characteristics” and that she does not have a legal relationship with the defendant. However, the documentation presented by the defendant demonstrated the existence of a contractual link between the parties. Therefore, the author’s alteration of the truth of the facts is unequivocal, which constitutes litigation in bad faith,” she said.