Post by account_disabled on Mar 13, 2024 15:30:26 GMT 10
The Covid-19 epidemic does not convert precarious tenure into fair tenure and is also not a general moratorium on compliance with all obligations. This argument was used by the 1st Private Law Chamber of the São Paulo Court of Justice to deny a man's request to remain, during the epidemic period, in a property sold by another person in an extrajudicial auction.
Reproduction Property sold at auction must be vacated even with an epidemic
The new owner went to court with the argument that the defendant continues to occupy the property and refuses to leave. The defendant, in turn, claimed to be facing financial difficulties resulting from the epidemic and, therefore, has nowhere to go or another place to live.
"It is true that the burden of B2B Lead depriving possession of a property whose price has been paid in full, including the granting of a deed and registration of the purchase and sale in the property's registration, cannot fall on the purchaser", stated the rapporteur, judge Francisco Loureiro, to dismiss the defendant's appeal.
Loureiro rejected the argument that the injunction on possession should not be complied with during the epidemic. This is because, according to the judge, the delay, the consolidation of the property, the auctions and the acquisition of the property date back to 2017, that is, they are facts prior to the coronavirus outbreak.
"Strictly speaking, the appellant should have vacated the property months ago, as he has precarious possession. The coronavirus pandemic does not have the power to change the nature of the possession exercised by the appellant. The isolation recommendation can be fulfilled in another location, and not in the property that has been unduly occupied for months", he added.
He also spoke of reverse damage, since "the appellant, who bought and paid for the property, could be deprived of occupying it, to the detriment of the need for social isolation." "Suspending the order for inauguration due to the pandemic would mean honoring the inertia of the aggravating party, which is not acceptable", concluded Loureiro. The decision was unanimous.