Abstract

The unseizability of retirement and salaries is an important issue in Brazilian higher courts. This is because article 7, item The Superior Court of Justice (STJ) states that alimony payments owed due to obligations of a family nature or civil liability fall within the exception to unseizability. However, in the judgment on Theme 1153, the STJ established that funds of a food nature, such as legal fees for succumbing, are not equivalent to “alimony benefits” for the purpose of exception to unseizability. This innovation of “restrictive” interpretation differentiates what constitutes “alimony benefits” from other forms of food credits, even those with a food nature, compared to labor credits. The Superior Labor Court (TST) has consolidated jurisprudence on the unseizability of salaries and pensions, except to guarantee payments of alimony debts resulting from the decisions it makes. However, the application of Theme 1153 by the STJ directly impacts the TST's jurisprudence, further limiting the garnishment of wages and pensions. This is because there is a distinction between alimony payments and food credits, and it is essential to understand the legal protection of these incomes. The TST must follow the guidance of the STJ, and tends to protect the worker's salary and retirement from seizures, except in specific cases. From then on, the TST jurisprudence must be updated to limit the seizure of credits that do not arise from “alimony benefits”.

Keywords

• Unseizability
• Salary
• Retirement
• Alimony Benefit

License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.