Post by xyz3400 on Feb 20, 2024 5:09:44 GMT -5
Understanding that the documents attached to the case do not indicate the essential elements for granting the request, the 25th Chamber of Private Law of the Court of Justice of São Paulo denied the benefit of free justice to a woman who invested R$ 3.1 million in bitcoins. She filed a contract termination action against a bitcoin company, asking for the full refund of the amount invested. 123RF 123RF TJ-SP denies free payment to woman who invested R$3.1 million in bitcoins Furthermore, the author of the action requested the free payment alleging that the high value of the case prevents her from paying the legal costs, without prejudice to her own and family support. She receives a salary of R$15,000 and a pension of R$2,000.
Therefore, the benefit was unanimously denied by the judges, who upheld the first instance decision.Although retired, the applicant has a registered job and earns a good salary. She has her own assets, income from investments and a savings account, evidence capable of ruling out, for now, the Honduras Mobile Number List appellant's allegation of economic insufficiency. It is impossible to admit that the value of the 1% preparation costs is high to the point of compromising your livelihood”, stated the rapporteur, judge Almeida Sampaio. These elements, stated the rapporteur, allow us to conclude that it does not meet the legal requirements for granting the benefit, in accordance with articles 98 and 99, §2, of the CPC.
For Sampaio, although many argue that the assertion of insufficient resources is enough to be entitled to the benefits of legal assistance, under the terms of article 99, §3, of the CPC, and article 3 of the State Constitution, the Federal Constitution provides for legal assistance legal “to those who prove insufficient resources” (article 5, LXXIV). “And, according to article 99, §2, of the CPC, the judge may reject the request for gratuity, “if there are elements in the file that demonstrate the lack of legal prerequisites for granting gratuity”. This is the case in the case,” he concluded. Therefore, the author of the action must complete the preparation of the interlocutory appeal within five days, “under penalty of the debt being registered as an active debt, with the learned court a quo being responsible for monitoring compliance with this determination, adopting the appropriate measures.
Therefore, the benefit was unanimously denied by the judges, who upheld the first instance decision.Although retired, the applicant has a registered job and earns a good salary. She has her own assets, income from investments and a savings account, evidence capable of ruling out, for now, the Honduras Mobile Number List appellant's allegation of economic insufficiency. It is impossible to admit that the value of the 1% preparation costs is high to the point of compromising your livelihood”, stated the rapporteur, judge Almeida Sampaio. These elements, stated the rapporteur, allow us to conclude that it does not meet the legal requirements for granting the benefit, in accordance with articles 98 and 99, §2, of the CPC.
For Sampaio, although many argue that the assertion of insufficient resources is enough to be entitled to the benefits of legal assistance, under the terms of article 99, §3, of the CPC, and article 3 of the State Constitution, the Federal Constitution provides for legal assistance legal “to those who prove insufficient resources” (article 5, LXXIV). “And, according to article 99, §2, of the CPC, the judge may reject the request for gratuity, “if there are elements in the file that demonstrate the lack of legal prerequisites for granting gratuity”. This is the case in the case,” he concluded. Therefore, the author of the action must complete the preparation of the interlocutory appeal within five days, “under penalty of the debt being registered as an active debt, with the learned court a quo being responsible for monitoring compliance with this determination, adopting the appropriate measures.