Changing names in estate summons does not nullify procedural acts, says STJ

nila44

Inserting the name of the executor himself, as an individual, instead of the name of the estate in a subpoena is a material error that does not cause harm to the parties. With this understanding, the 4th Panel of the Superior Court of Justice did not accept the annulment of a process and recognized the estate's subpoenas made in the name of a lawyer who received unreserved substitution powers.


Already in the execution phase, the action dealt with contractual termination requested by a fuel distributor against a gas station. Both the estate of one of the partners and the establishment were represented, in the process, by the remaining partner.

When summoned in person, the partner did not hire a lawyer to represent her nor did she present her own defense, which is why her absence was declared. However, the company and the estate, represented by it, hired different lawyers and contested the action.

During the process, there were B2B Lead several changes of lawyers, with the sub-establishment of powers. In one of these exchanges, two defenders of the estate transferred powers supposedly granted by the executor in her personal name to another professional.

The action became final and unappealable in 2004, a precedent for the distributor's request. Ten years later, during the execution of the sentence, the estate requested the nullity of the procedural acts based on the order that determined the specification of evidence on the grounds that it had not been subpoenaed on behalf of the lawyer who represented it at the time.

With the request denied at the Court of Justice of Mato Grosso, an appeal was filed with the STJ so that the ruling that denied the absolute nullity resulting from the lack of subpoena could be reformed. But, when analyzing the case, the reporting minister Antonio Carlos Ferreira stated that what happened was nothing more than a “simple material error”.



“Instead of including the name of the estate as the grantor of the sub-established powers, the name of the executor herself was inserted, as an individual, who was never represented procedurally by the sub-establishing lawyer”, he explained, considering that, even with the error, the estate was not left without technical defense during the course of the process and, therefore, the nullity claimed does not deserve acceptance.

His vote, followed unanimously by the other members of the class, highlighted that the supposed defects in the subpoenas were alleged almost ten years after the final judgment, which characterizes, according to the jurisprudence of the STJ, the so-called “nullity of pocket”, which does not compatible with the principle of good faith in legal relations.