Prescrição e dívida parceladaum assunto controverso

Resumo

This work aims to expose the discussion held in legal doctrine and, mainly, in state and higher courts regarding the initial term of the statute of limitations for the claims of installment debt collection (related to obligations of a deferred nature), demonstrating the current legal uncertainty and the reasons why one of the sides is mistaken. Even with the validity of the Civil Code of 2002 for decades and a strong Brazilian culture of installment payments, there is still no unanimity, in the current legal context of the country, as to whether the five-year prescription period starts with the default of each installment, or only with the maturity of the last installment stipulated between the parties. On one hand, legal scholars argue that, since it is a single obligation, only fractionated to facilitate performance, there would be only one statute of limitations, which should start running with the maturity of the last installment. On the other hand, there are those who argue for the term a quo of the prescription, individually, with the default of each installment, since the requirement for the start of the statute of limitations is met: the violation of the right and the consequent birth of the claim (principle of actio nata). This second thesis is the position defended in this work, which will focus on proposing appropriate solutions to resolve the controversy.

Ficha do documento

Tipo

Outro

Ano

2023

Instituição

Fundação Getulio Vargas

Fonte

Repositório da FGV

Idioma

Português

Acesso

Não informado

Identificador

oai:repositorio.fgv.br:10438/34995

Palavras-chave

Termo inicialDívida parceladaParcelamentoInsegurança jurídicaActio nataDívidasCobrança de contasSegurança jurídica