Post by account_disabled on Mar 6, 2024 5:32:41 GMT 1
A counterclaim is possible when there is a connection with the main action or the foundations of the defense. With this understanding, the rd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice denied an appeal by Banco Real and Real Previdência e Seguros against the judgment of the Court of Justice of São Paulo. The financial institutions contested the possibility of counterclaims in an action for moral damages brought by them against one of their clients.
After seeing a debt of R$ thousand turn into R$ million and having his requests for explanations ignored, a client of Banco Real and Real Seguros published advertisements in newspapers and on billboards making the situation public, in addition to maintaining a website on internet with the title “The drama of a Banco Real customer”. The financial institutions considered that much of the information published was untrue and filed a lawsuit for moral damages against the debtor.
In his defense, the defendant stated that he did BTC Number Data not intend to attack the companies' image, but rather to draw attention to their situation. He stated that he had been trying for a long time to obtain information about the excessive growth of debt, always without success. Based on this, he filed a counterclaim and stated that, because he was subject to abusive interest rates and had not received due attention from his creditors, he was entitled to compensation for moral damages.
The TJ-SP maintained the counterclaim. He considered that it was applicable in discussions about contractual clauses and compensation requests. It also understood that the requirements of article of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) were met, which conditions the counterclaim to the existence of a connection with the main action or the grounds of the defense.
In their appeal to the STJ, the financial institutions alleged an offense against article of the CPC. They maintained that there was no connection with the main action or with the foundations of the defense. They pointed out that the main action only deals with moral damages and that there was no challenge to the facts presented. And that, in fact, the defendant admitted to the allegedly defamatory publications. Furthermore, the facts presented in the defense would be irrelevant to the resolution of the main action and, therefore, there would be no common point with the defense argument.
After seeing a debt of R$ thousand turn into R$ million and having his requests for explanations ignored, a client of Banco Real and Real Seguros published advertisements in newspapers and on billboards making the situation public, in addition to maintaining a website on internet with the title “The drama of a Banco Real customer”. The financial institutions considered that much of the information published was untrue and filed a lawsuit for moral damages against the debtor.
In his defense, the defendant stated that he did BTC Number Data not intend to attack the companies' image, but rather to draw attention to their situation. He stated that he had been trying for a long time to obtain information about the excessive growth of debt, always without success. Based on this, he filed a counterclaim and stated that, because he was subject to abusive interest rates and had not received due attention from his creditors, he was entitled to compensation for moral damages.
The TJ-SP maintained the counterclaim. He considered that it was applicable in discussions about contractual clauses and compensation requests. It also understood that the requirements of article of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) were met, which conditions the counterclaim to the existence of a connection with the main action or the grounds of the defense.
In their appeal to the STJ, the financial institutions alleged an offense against article of the CPC. They maintained that there was no connection with the main action or with the foundations of the defense. They pointed out that the main action only deals with moral damages and that there was no challenge to the facts presented. And that, in fact, the defendant admitted to the allegedly defamatory publications. Furthermore, the facts presented in the defense would be irrelevant to the resolution of the main action and, therefore, there would be no common point with the defense argument.