Post by account_disabled on Mar 12, 2024 21:22:04 GMT -6
The clause that prevents the guarantor from exoneration is not effective after the extension of the guarantee contract. This is because the claim that guarantors are bound for an indefinite period is unacceptable.
With this understanding, the 3rd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice allowed the dismissal of two guarantors of a contract between a company and Banco do Brasil.
"The provision of a perpetual contract is against the law, which would happen if the bond was accepted to be linked to the main contract and the automatic extension of this without the right of the guarantors, obliged in a contract of a gratuitous nature, to be exonerated from this obligation", he observed. .
According to the rapporteur, minister Portugal Mobile Number List Paulo de Tarso Sanseverino, the jurisprudence of the STJ has a consolidated understanding that the contractual clause that establishes the automatic extension of the guarantee with that of the main contract is valid.
For him, if the guarantor wishes to request his release, he must make, during the contractual extension period, the notification provided for in article 835 of the Civil Code, even when there is an express waiver of the right to release, but before the start of default and collection. by the surety, against the guarantor, of the credit guaranteed by him.
According to Sanseverino, the release arising from the request for exoneration is effective at the end of the 60-day period, counted from the notification or summons of the defendant in the exoneration action.
"Despite the possibility of exoneration, it does not produce retroactive effects in relation to debts verified before the exoneration request and, in addition, the 60-day period provided for in the CC, article 835, in relation to non-lease guarantees, counting from , in this case, the summons of the defendant", he stated. With information from the STJ press office.