Post by account_disabled on Mar 13, 2024 4:13:48 GMT -5
Bilateral or synagmatic legal transaction free or onerous by which the creditor active subject of an obligation transfers to another in the in whole or in part their position in the obligatory relationship. The person who makes the assignment to another is called the assignor. The person who receives the right from the creditor is the assignee while the debtor is called the assignee.”
Mutual in turn as conceptualized above is “the loan of fungible things. The borrower is obliged to return to the lender what he received from him in the same way quality and quantity” not to be CG Leads confused with assignment. Regarding the difference between the institutes the STJ holds the understanding that “the assignee cannot be equated with the borrower” and is even limited “to postulate in court the review of the respective contract”. Let's see:
"CIVIL RIGHT. ILLEGALITY OF THE ASSIGNEE TO DISCUSS IN COURT ISSUES INVOLVING HOUSING MUTUAL WITHOUT FCVS COVERAGE ENTERED INTO BY . REPETITIVE APPEAL ART. -C OF THE CPC AND RES. -STJ. In the case of a housing loan contract without coverage from the Salary Variation Compensation Fund concluded until transferred without the consent of the financing agent and outside the conditions established by Law the transferee does not have active legitimacy to file an action requesting the review of the respective contract. This is because under the terms of the relevant legislation it is not possible to regularize the aforementioned rights assignment contract - known as a “drawer contract” - which implies stating that in these cases the assignee cannot be equated to the borrower and therefore it does not have the legitimacy to request a review of the respective contract in court. In effect art.
Caput of Law establishes that “transfers within the scope of the SFH with the exception of those involving contracts falling within the readjustment plans defined by Law of July which have been concluded between the borrower and the acquirer until October without the intervention of the financing institution may be regularized” under the terms of that law. However arts. of Law and rd of Law as amended by Law determine that given the lack of a clause covering any residual debt balance.
FCVS the transfer of rights and obligations relating to the property financed by the SFH is not automatic and will only occur at the discretion of the financial institution which will establish new conditions for the adjustment so that the third party acquirer will only have active legitimacy to file an action related to the aforementioned assignment contract if the financial agent has agreed with the transaction. It should also be noted that these transfers depend on the consent of the financing institution according to its criteria and under new financial conditions insofar as the law did not impose on it the risk of bearing the residual debt balance of the transaction – unlike the that would occur if there was coverage by FCVS a situation in which the outstanding balance would be guaranteed by the Fund.” STJ – REsp ..-RJ Fourth Panel DJe . REsp ..-CE Rel. Min. Ricardo Villas Bôas Cueva judged on.
Mutual in turn as conceptualized above is “the loan of fungible things. The borrower is obliged to return to the lender what he received from him in the same way quality and quantity” not to be CG Leads confused with assignment. Regarding the difference between the institutes the STJ holds the understanding that “the assignee cannot be equated with the borrower” and is even limited “to postulate in court the review of the respective contract”. Let's see:
"CIVIL RIGHT. ILLEGALITY OF THE ASSIGNEE TO DISCUSS IN COURT ISSUES INVOLVING HOUSING MUTUAL WITHOUT FCVS COVERAGE ENTERED INTO BY . REPETITIVE APPEAL ART. -C OF THE CPC AND RES. -STJ. In the case of a housing loan contract without coverage from the Salary Variation Compensation Fund concluded until transferred without the consent of the financing agent and outside the conditions established by Law the transferee does not have active legitimacy to file an action requesting the review of the respective contract. This is because under the terms of the relevant legislation it is not possible to regularize the aforementioned rights assignment contract - known as a “drawer contract” - which implies stating that in these cases the assignee cannot be equated to the borrower and therefore it does not have the legitimacy to request a review of the respective contract in court. In effect art.
Caput of Law establishes that “transfers within the scope of the SFH with the exception of those involving contracts falling within the readjustment plans defined by Law of July which have been concluded between the borrower and the acquirer until October without the intervention of the financing institution may be regularized” under the terms of that law. However arts. of Law and rd of Law as amended by Law determine that given the lack of a clause covering any residual debt balance.
FCVS the transfer of rights and obligations relating to the property financed by the SFH is not automatic and will only occur at the discretion of the financial institution which will establish new conditions for the adjustment so that the third party acquirer will only have active legitimacy to file an action related to the aforementioned assignment contract if the financial agent has agreed with the transaction. It should also be noted that these transfers depend on the consent of the financing institution according to its criteria and under new financial conditions insofar as the law did not impose on it the risk of bearing the residual debt balance of the transaction – unlike the that would occur if there was coverage by FCVS a situation in which the outstanding balance would be guaranteed by the Fund.” STJ – REsp ..-RJ Fourth Panel DJe . REsp ..-CE Rel. Min. Ricardo Villas Bôas Cueva judged on.