Post by account_disabled on Jan 23, 2024 5:23:32 GMT -6
The judgments of the Superior Court of Justice, in the 1990s and early 2000s, determined the purge of interest capitalization, even when expressly agreed, recognizing the illegality of anatocism in view of the prohibitions of article 4 of the Usury Law and of Precedent 121 of the Federal Supreme Court [1] . However, with the emergence of new rules, which authorized the capitalization of interest in bank contracts, at a frequency less than annual [2] , the STJ's decisions acquired new contours.
In 2004, the 2nd Section of the Superior Court of Buy Phone Number List Justice changed its understanding, starting to admit the capitalization of interest in bank contracts, at a frequency less than annual, as long as they were signed within the validity of article 5 of MP 2.170-36/2001 and expressly agreed [3] . The prohibitions of the Usury Law and Precedent 121/STF no longer support the decisions of the STJ, which, in 2008, also stated that the rule of article 5, of MP 2170-36/2001, prevails over the provision of article 591 , of the Civil Code of 2002, which only allows annual capitalization.
If, on the one hand, the STJ recognized that in contracts signed after MP 2170-36/2001 the capitalization of interest is permitted, at a frequency less than annual, on the other hand it has repeatedly determined that the clear and express contracting of interest capitalization it is an indispensable condition for its application [5] , even if on an annual basis, which was not prohibited either by the Usury Law or by CC/02 [6] . Therefore, two guidelines could already be extracted from the STJ's jurisprudence, on the capitalization of interest in bank contracts: (i) the capitalization of interest is permitted, in contracts signed after the validity of MP 2170-36/2001; (ii) the validity of the capitalization depends on express contracting, informing the periodicity of its incidence.
In 2004, the 2nd Section of the Superior Court of Buy Phone Number List Justice changed its understanding, starting to admit the capitalization of interest in bank contracts, at a frequency less than annual, as long as they were signed within the validity of article 5 of MP 2.170-36/2001 and expressly agreed [3] . The prohibitions of the Usury Law and Precedent 121/STF no longer support the decisions of the STJ, which, in 2008, also stated that the rule of article 5, of MP 2170-36/2001, prevails over the provision of article 591 , of the Civil Code of 2002, which only allows annual capitalization.
If, on the one hand, the STJ recognized that in contracts signed after MP 2170-36/2001 the capitalization of interest is permitted, at a frequency less than annual, on the other hand it has repeatedly determined that the clear and express contracting of interest capitalization it is an indispensable condition for its application [5] , even if on an annual basis, which was not prohibited either by the Usury Law or by CC/02 [6] . Therefore, two guidelines could already be extracted from the STJ's jurisprudence, on the capitalization of interest in bank contracts: (i) the capitalization of interest is permitted, in contracts signed after the validity of MP 2170-36/2001; (ii) the validity of the capitalization depends on express contracting, informing the periodicity of its incidence.