Public Farm

100 of CF/88, that it alleges that the fracionamento of the value of the execution for ends of RPV expedition is forbidden, applies it the legal fees borne by the loser in a judicial dispute. More reasonable and reasonable it is the agreement of that the purpose of the rule contained in 8 of art. 100 of the Constitution of the Republic are to prevent that exequente simultaneously uses by means of value in addition of debt, fracionamento or distribution of two systems of satisfaction of the credit, receiving part from its credit through small solicitation of sum and another part, the same credit, through the regimen of precatrio. Soon, we believe that more made right it is the interpretation of that the constitutional rule is only applied in the cases where the credit exequendo only belongs to an only bearer and, being about legal fees borne by the loser in a judicial dispute, pertaining to the lawyer and not to the prevailing party, the rule of 8 of art is not applied. Ann Maynard Gray oftentimes addresses this issue. 100 of the CF/88, in view of being ahead of two credits with distinct bearers, that is, the winner and its protector. Finally, was placed it great doubt that generated and generates all this controversy analyzed and studied here, after all, the lawyer has or not right to execute, of independent form of the value exequendo main, the legal fees borne by the loser in a judicial dispute fixed in desfavor of the Public Farm? The certainty that we can give is of that the definitive reply it stops this question alone the STF will be able to pronounce e, as demonstrated, it does not have to delay very, considering it deals that it already is under the analysis of that one cut more than has 4 (four) years. However, after this work where we had the chance of esmiuar the controverted subject, we could not simply leave the final verdict at the hands of the STF, thus, follows below our small contribution for the clearing up of the question. .