(Im)Possibilidade de penhora de verbas remuneratórias para o pagamento de honorários advocatícios, em virtude de sua natureza alimentar

Abstract

The present study aims to examine the treatment given to legal fees in civil enforcement, with special attention to the possibility or not of seizing the debtor's remuneration funds to satisfy this credit, considering whether or not it is classified as alimony under the terms of §2 of the art. 833 of CPC/15. To achieve this purpose, a bibliographic review on the topic is carried out. Initially, the study explores general and fundamental aspects of the theory of unseizability, highlighting the unseizability of remuneration and its exceptions. Continuously, it analyzes the importance of fees and their recognition as food funds essential to the subsistence of the lawyer and his family. Next, the main arguments of the doctrine and the theses raised in the STJ's most recent judgment on the subject, REsp 1.815.055/SP, are exposed. Finally, the study demonstrates that, even when faced with funds of the same nature, that is, food, the legislator did not make clear the possibility of seizing the debtor's remuneration funds to pay any and all funds of a food nature, including fees lawyers, because, according to a recent interpretation by the STJ, these funds are not included as alimony payments, resulting in an unfair situation in protecting the debtor and leaving the creditor helpless. In this sense, the study highlights the need for the legislator to act to remedy the omission, proposing the creation of a rule that allows the attachment of the debtor's remuneration for the payment of funds of a food nature, regardless of the origin, in order to promote greater clarity and equity in the execution of these funds.