top of page

Changes in the Lease Law (Law 12.112/2009): Reflections, Divergences and Convergences of the STJ

This article aims to analyze in more detail the changes introduced by the Law 12.112/2009 in the leasing legislation and how these changes have been interpreted by the courts, with a main focus on the divergent and convergent position of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) on the highlighted points, highlighting their consequences and possible solutions found.

Law 12,112/2009 brought significant changes to leasing legislation, with the aim of modernizing the rules and balancing the relationship between landlords and tenants. In this article, we will make a deeper analysis on how these changes have been applied in practice, considering the divergent and convergent positions of the courts, especially the STJ, addressing their consequences and possible solutions.

2. Extension of the Minimum Residential Lease Period

One of the most controversial changes introduced by Law 12,112/2009 was the extension of the minimum residential lease term, which went from 30 to 36 months. This measure has generated discussions about its constitutionality, as it restricts the contractual freedom of the parties. Some lower court decisions understand that such a restriction is illegal, while others defend the validity of the amendment. Regarding the STJ, there is a consolidated understanding that the amendment is valid and seeks to provide greater security for both the lessor and the lessee.

Possibility of Guarantee with Surety Bond

Another significant change brought about by the law is the possibility of using bail insurance as a rental guarantee. This amendment has been well received by case law, as it offers practicality and legal certainty to the parties involved. However, in some cases, disagreements arise between the courts regarding the possibility of the landlord requiring other forms of guarantee, in addition to surety insurance. The understanding pacified by the STJ is that surety insurance is valid as a form of guarantee, but does not prevent other modalities from being agreed between the parties.

Eviction Rule Changes

Law 12,112/2009 also brought changes to the eviction rules, seeking to streamline the procedure for vacating the property in cases of default or breach of contractual obligations. However, the application of these new rules has generated disagreements in the courts regarding the interpretation and scope of the changes. Among these disagreements, discussions about deadlines and necessary requirements for granting the eviction stand out. The STJ has sought to resolve these differences, consolidating understandings that guarantee procedural efficiency and speed, without harming the rights of the parties involved.

Reflections on the Practice and Positioning of the STJ

Changes in the Lease Law have generated several reflections in practice, causing divergences and convergences between the courts. In the context of the STJ, the court's position has been fundamental to establish guidelines and standardize understandings on these controversial points, such as the extension of the minimum term of residential lease, the use of surety insurance as a guarantee and changes in the eviction rules. /p>


Law 12.112/2009 promoted important changes in the leasing legislation, but also generated divergences and convergences between the courts. In this article, we seek to clarify how these changes have been interpreted in practice, emphasizing jurisprudential divergences and convergences, especially with regard to the positions of the STJ. It is critical that those involved in tenancy relationships are aware of these changes and the solutions found by the courts, in order to ensure correct and fair application of the law.

2 views0 comments

Bình luận

bottom of page