A Brazilian court has suspended collections related to a disputed consigned credit card. Judge Marcos Antonio de Souza Lima of the 3rd Civil Court of Foz do Iguaçu, Paraná, made the decision in a case involving a retired military policeman from Bahia who claimed to have contracted a consigned loan but found deductions on his paycheck for a RMC – Reserva de Margem Consignável credit card, which he alleged he did not request or authorize.
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking recognition of the non-existence of the legal relationship, refund of deducted amounts, and moral damages. He also requested, on an urgent basis, the suspension of collections and presentation of documents related to the questioned contract.
Judge Lima considered the requirements of Article 300 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be present for granting urgent relief: the probability of the right and the risk of harm. The judge noted that the allegation of lack of contract for the credit cards linked to the Reserva de Margem Consignável, combined with the presented elements, indicates the possibility of recognizing the debt as unenforceable.
Read Also: New Regulations Restrict FIDCs’ Acquisition of Judicial Credits
Judge Lima’s decision was based on the fact that maintaining collections while the debt is being discussed in court is unreasonable, given the plaintiff’s claim of non-contracting. The judge also highlighted that credit card interest rates are among the highest in the financial market, and maintaining collections and charging fees could increase the debt and compromise the consumer’s financial situation.
The judge ordered the financial institution to refrain from collecting any amounts related to the disputed contract until a new judicial decision, under penalty of a fine of R$ 1,000 per deduction made. The judge also ordered the defendant to present the contract and all extracts resulting from the questioned contractual relationship within ten days.
The law firm Guedes & Ramos Advogados Associados represents the consumer. This measure is reversible and can be revoked if subsequent analysis of the evidence demonstrates the absence of the requirements that justified its granting.
