REsp 1937575 - DECISAO

Não comprovada a má-fé do terceiro adquirente, não se satisfaz a exigência da Súmula 375/Tema 243; assim, não há reconhecimento de fraude à execução e deve ser restabelecida a sentença de primeira instância.

Source-derived case information.

Parties: Recorrente: MARLENE DE LIMA
Court: Superior Tribunal de Justiça
Jurisdiction: Brazil
Judgment Date: 13 August 2021
Procedural Posture: Recurso Especial / Julgamento Do Recurso Especial
Outcome: Recurso especial provido para restabelecer a sentença de fls. 578/582.
Legal Topics: Fraude À Execução, Embargos De Terceiro, Presunção De Boa Fé, Decadência, Recursos Repetitivos (tema 243/stj)

Processo Civil Fraude À Execução Embargos De Terceiro Presunção De Boa Fé Decadência Recursos Repetitivos (tema 243/stj)

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2

Parties

MARLENE DE LIMA

Recorrente

Procedural Posture

Recurso Especial / Julgamento Do Recurso Especial

Legal Issues

1 Reconhecimento de fraude à execução depende do registro da penhora do bem alienado ou da prova de má-fé do terceiro adquirente
2 Presunção de boa-fé do adquirente e ônus de provar a má-fé
3 Aplicação da Súmula 375/STJ e do Tema Repetitivo 243

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Recurso especial provido para restabelecer a sentença de fls. 578/582.

Orders

Dar provimento ao recurso especial para restabelecer a sentença de fls. 578/582.
Intimem-se.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.