The Superior Court of Justice (STJ) recently consolidated a relevant understanding for the agribusiness sector regarding the termination of agricultural contracts in the face of judicial decisions.
Review the key points of the decision rendered by the Third Panel in REsp 2.187.412/MT:
Termination of Lease by Judicial Decision
The Third Panel of the STJ ruled that the loss of rural property by the lessor, resulting from a judicial decision in a replevin action, implies the immediate termination of the lease agreement. Consequently, the lessee does not have the right to remain in possession of the property until the end of the originally stipulated contractual term.
Distinction Between Alienation and Judicial Loss
Justice Rapporteur Nancy Andrighi clarified fundamental points regarding the application of the Rural Land Statute:
- Voluntary alienation: in the event of sale or imposition of a real encumbrance, the acquirer is subrogated to the rights and obligations of the alienator, maintaining the contract in force (Article 92, § 5 of Law 4,504/64).
- Loss by judicial decision: this hypothesis is not to be confused with alienation. According to Article 26, item VIII, of Decree No. 59,566/66, the lease is terminated by the loss of the rural property.
Practical Consequences
- Absence of subrogation: compelling the new owner (who judicially recovered the property) to honor a contract to which they did not consent would constitute an undue burden.
- No need for eviction action: once the contract is terminated by the loss of the property, the new owner does not need to file an independent action for rescission or eviction to be placed in possession.
- Right of first refusal: the lessee’s right of first refusal presupposes an existing and valid contract, which ceases to exist upon the loss of the property by the original lessor.