DECISION
15/09/2022 07:00
It is not possible to recognize a parallel stable union, even if it started before marriage.
Unanimously, the Third Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) decided that it is not possible to recognize a stable union simultaneously with marriage, as well as the sharing of goods in three equal parts (triation), even if the beginning of the union is before the marriage.
The understanding was signed in the judgment of the special appeal filed by a woman who lived with a man for three years before he married another and maintained the relationship for another 25 years. To the STJ, the appellant reiterated the request for recognition and dissolution of the stable union, with the sharing of assets in triage.
By partially granting the appeal, the collegiate considered that there is no impediment to the recognition of the stable union in the period of coexistence before the marriage, but, from that moment on, such union becomes concubinage (simultaneity of relationships).
The legal system enshrines the monogamy
The judge accepted the woman’s request and recognized the entire period of coexistence as a stable union, with the consequent sharing in triage. However, accepting the couple’s appeal, the Minas Gerais Court of Justice (TJMG) reformed the sentence, understanding that marriage should prevail over concubinage.
Rapporteur of the case at the STJ, Justice Nancy Andrighi stated that, according to the jurisprudence, “the recognition of a stable union concomitant with marriage is inadmissible, insofar as it presupposes the absence of impediments to marriage, or, at least, the existence of de facto separation”.
The magistrate also recalled that the Federal Supreme Court (STF), in a similar situation, established the thesis that the preexistence of marriage or stable union of one of the cohabitants prevents the recognition of a new bond, due to the consecration of monogamy by the legal system. Brazilian.
Thus, Nancy Andrighi recognized as a stable union only the period of coexistence prior to marriage. According to her, the sharing referring to this interval, as it is a union prior to the Lei 9.278/19962482″ target=”_blank” rel=”nofollow”> 2482″ target=”_blank” rel=”nofollow”>summary 380 do STF.
Concubinage equated to de facto society and wife’s share
Regarding the period after the celebration of the marriage, the rapporteur highlighted that the appellant and the defendant had two children during the concubinage that lasted 25 years and was known to all involved. According to her, this relationship is equivalent to society in fact, and sharing in this period is also possible, provided there is proof of the common effort in the construction of heritage (Sumula 380 of the STF).
When amending the judgment under appeal, Nancy Andrighi pointed out that, while safeguarding the wife’s right to half of the assets (meação), the sharing must be done in the settlement of the sentence, since the ordinary instances did not mention whether there is evidence of the appellant’s participation in the construction of the patrimony or which assets are part of the wife’s moiety.
The number of this case is not disclosed due to judicial secrecy.
Source:
Instagram: @andersondiasdr
Facebook: Anderson Santos
