Post by messi05 on Jan 24, 2024 5:22:22 GMT -6
On June 21st, the seminar Real Estate Development from the STJ's Perspective was held in the auditorium of the Superior Court of Justice. Invited to participate in the panel “Jurisprudential perspectives on real estate business”, I defended, with the support of an excellent doctrinal article by Melhim Namem Chalhub, the review of the understanding crystallized in Summary 543 of the Superior Court of Justice, in which it is written that, in the case of resolution of the promise contract for the purchase and sale of properties forming part of the real estate development, the amounts paid by the withdrawn party must be refunded immediately.
As we know, the promise to buy and sell has as its Buy Phone Number List object a property that does not yet exist, which has yet to be built. And it will be built with resources from the prospective buyers themselves. Hence why it is often said that the purchase and sale promise contract, in these cases, has two purposes. First: transmit the purchasing rights of the future good; second: raise the necessary resources for construction. The work, therefore, is paid for with the funds of the prospective buyers themselves. When there is bank financing, under the terms of Law 9,514/1997, the operation guarantees exactly the credits related to the promises, which are assigned on a fiduciary basis to the financial institution.
It is in this context that Law 4,591/64 allows the establishment of a grace period, counting from the offer of units on the market, for the developer to assess the financial viability of the project. Within this period, the developer may withdraw from the project. After this period of time, the promises become irreversible, under the terms of article 32, paragraph 2, of Law 4,591/64. Precisely because the incorporation assets are the source of construction funding, the law took care to protect it: article 31-A of Law 4,591/64 provides that the so-called allocated assets are separated from the developer's assets. In other words: it is not responsible for the developer's debts that do not relate to that specific work. And credits relating to promises cannot be seized, under the terms of article 833, item XII, of the new CPC.
As we know, the promise to buy and sell has as its Buy Phone Number List object a property that does not yet exist, which has yet to be built. And it will be built with resources from the prospective buyers themselves. Hence why it is often said that the purchase and sale promise contract, in these cases, has two purposes. First: transmit the purchasing rights of the future good; second: raise the necessary resources for construction. The work, therefore, is paid for with the funds of the prospective buyers themselves. When there is bank financing, under the terms of Law 9,514/1997, the operation guarantees exactly the credits related to the promises, which are assigned on a fiduciary basis to the financial institution.
It is in this context that Law 4,591/64 allows the establishment of a grace period, counting from the offer of units on the market, for the developer to assess the financial viability of the project. Within this period, the developer may withdraw from the project. After this period of time, the promises become irreversible, under the terms of article 32, paragraph 2, of Law 4,591/64. Precisely because the incorporation assets are the source of construction funding, the law took care to protect it: article 31-A of Law 4,591/64 provides that the so-called allocated assets are separated from the developer's assets. In other words: it is not responsible for the developer's debts that do not relate to that specific work. And credits relating to promises cannot be seized, under the terms of article 833, item XII, of the new CPC.