Resultados de busca

This scientific article discusses the effects of contractual termination pursuant to paragraph two of article 34 and improvements, pursuant to the same paragraph, of law 6766/79. In addition, it explores the situation in which the seller makes the payment in 12 installments, as provided for in Article 32-A. However, there is a legal divergence in relation to Precedent 1 of the Court of São Paulo, which provides for the full return in a single payment. Additionally, case law and the position of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) on the subject are analyzed. The contractual resolution of real estate transactions involves complex legal issues, especially when discussing the return of amounts paid by the buyer in case of termination. In this sense, the second paragraph of article 34 and the approach to improvements, as established in law 6766/79, are fundamental for us to understand the effects of this resolution, when the seller opts for payment in 12 installments, as provided for in article 32-A . However, it is important to point out that there is a divergence in case law, especially in relation to Precedent 1 of the Court of São Paulo, which determines the full return in a single payment. In addition, the position of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) on the matter will be analyzed. The second paragraph of Article 34 of Law 6766/79 provides for the possibility of restitution of improvements made to properties when the contract is terminated. In this context, the seller may choose to make the return in monthly installments, as established in article 32-A. This form of payment in installments provides more flexibility and financial viability to the seller and, eventually, to the buyer. However, there is a relevant divergence in the courts regarding the return in installments, especially in relation to Precedent 1 of the Court of São Paulo, which determines the full return in a single payment. This summary is contrary to the forecast of payment in installments established by law. In this sense, there is a dissonance between the jurisprudential interpretation and the current legislation. However, it is important to note that jurisprudence has evolved on this issue. The Superior Court of Justice has been called upon to issue an opinion on the subject and has adopted positions that consider the feasibility of payment in installments, in line with the provisions of article 32-A of law 6766/79. This position has been adopted based on the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, which take into account the seller's financial capacity and the need to guarantee reimbursement to the buyer within reasonable periods. Conclusion: The contractual resolution in the real estate context, when there is the option of return in installments by the seller, as provided for in law 6766/79, generates debates on the effects and obligations related to the restitution of the improvements made. In this context, the jurisprudential divergence presented by the summary 1 of the Court of São Paulo, which determines the full return in a single payment, contrasts with the legal provision of payment in installments. However, it is important to highlight that case law has evolved on this issue and the STJ has positioned itself in favor of the possibility of payment in installments, taking into account the reasonableness and proportionality of the situation. In this way, it is essential that the parties involved in the contractual resolution process seek solutions that are in compliance with the legislation and the most recent jurisprudential decisions, guaranteeing a fair and balanced resolution for all parties involved.

This scientific article aims to analyze the differences between fiduciary alienation and mortgage, highlighting their effects and developments according to jurisprudence and the position of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ). The concepts of each institute, its legal effects, practical aspects and the most recent decisions of the courts on the subject will be addressed. In the field of real estate law, fiduciary alienation and mortgage are institutes widely used to guarantee the payment of debts related to real estate. Although they have similar purposes, these two institutes have significant differences in relation to their effects and consequences. In this article, we will discuss the distinctions between fiduciary alienation and mortgage, based on jurisprudence and the position of the STJ, in order to provide an in-depth understanding of these topics. 1. Fiduciary Sale: Fiduciary alienation is an institute provided for in Law nº 9.514/97, which allows the debtor to transfer ownership of an asset to the creditor as a guarantee for a debt. In this case, the creditor becomes the fiduciary, and the debtor the fiduciary. The main characteristic of fiduciary alienation is the fact that, while the debt is not settled, the trustee has direct possession of the asset, and the debtor has only indirect possession. In case of default, the fiduciary may auction the alienated asset to settle the debt. 2. Mortgage: The mortgage, in turn, is an institute regulated by the Civil Code, in which the debtor (mortgant) grants the creditor (mortgage holder) a real right of guarantee over an immovable property for the payment of a debt. In this case, unlike fiduciary alienation, the debtor maintains direct possession of the asset and can enjoy it normally. In the event of default, the creditor may request the foreclosure of the mortgage in court to obtain satisfaction of the credit, and may take the property to public auction. 3. Legal Effects: The main difference between fiduciary alienation and mortgage lies in the form of guarantee and the effects in case of default. The fiduciary alienation gives the creditor a property right over the good, while in the mortgage the creditor only has a preemptive right over the property. In addition, in fiduciary alienation, the transfer of ownership is automatic, while in mortgages formalization is required through a contract and subsequent registration at the Real Estate Registry Office. 4. Jurisprudence and Positioning of the STJ: With regard to jurisprudence and the position of the STJ, it is important to note that this is a subject in constant evolution. The STJ has already issued relevant decisions on fiduciary alienation and mortgages, establishing understandings that have influence in future cases. It is common for there to be debates about the limits and possible abuses of each institute, as well as respect for the debtor's rights. Conclusion: In short, fiduciary alienation and mortgage are legal institutes used to guarantee the payment of debts related to real estate, but they have differences in relation to their effects and legal consequences. The jurisprudence and the positioning of the STJ play a fundamental role in the interpretation and resolution of conflicts related to these institutes. Thus, it is essential that legal professionals, as well as parties involved in real estate contracts, are up to date on these decisions to ensure proper and fair application of legal rules.

This scientific article addresses the differences between possession and property, focusing on species and consequences, in the light of legislation, jurisprudence of Brazilian courts and the position of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ). In addition, the concept of tolerance and the distinction between regular tenure and precarious tenure will be explored, elucidating their legal impacts. This article aims to analyze the differences between possession and property from a legal perspective, presenting their species and consequences, with emphasis on the jurisprudence of Brazilian courts, notably the Superior Court of Justice (STJ). The concept of tolerance and the distinction between regular and precarious possession will also be addressed, highlighting its effects in the legal field. 1. Possession: Possession consists in the actual exercise of power over a thing, with the intention of having it as yours. It can be classified into direct possession, when there is physical contact and occupation of the property, and indirect possession, when someone holds power, even without physical interaction with the property. Furthermore, it is important to mention the existence of regular possession and precarious possession, the latter characterized by the absence of a legitimate title for the exercise of possession. 2. Property: Property is the broadest right that a person can have over a good, giving him the power to use, enjoy, dispose of and claim the thing. It is an absolute right, constitutionally guaranteed and provided for in the Civil Code. Unlike possession, ownership gives the holder exclusivity and full powers over the property. 3. Differences and Consequences: The differences between possession and property relate to the powers exercised over the good. While possession is characterized as a de facto power, property constitutes a right. In addition, tolerance is a key element in distinguishing regular tenure from precarious tenure. Regular possession is exercised with the owner's consent, characterizing a concession or permission relationship, without implying the transfer of property rights. Precarious possession, on the other hand, is exercised without authorization or legitimate title, and can be temporarily maintained by the owner's will, but, at any time, it can be withdrawn. 4. Tolerance and Precarious Tenure: Tolerance is an important factor in differentiating between regular tenure and precarious tenure. It refers to the owner's acceptance of allowing another person to occupy his property, even without express authorization. This tolerance may be expressed through an informal or tacit agreement, and may be revoked whenever the owner so desires. In this sense, precarious possession is established as a fragile condition, subject to termination at any time, without the need for a judicial process. 5. STJ Jurisprudence and Positioning: In the jurisprudential field, especially in the STJ, there are numerous precedents on cases involving the differentiation between possession and property, as well as tolerance and precarious possession. The STJ has positioned itself in the sense of considering the existence of an informal or tacit occupation agreement, when the owner's tolerance is demonstrated, recognizing the precarious nature of this possession. Conclusion: Understanding the differences between possession and property is essential for the proper application of civil law. In this context, the analysis of jurisprudence and the position of the STJ provides an in-depth view on the subject, especially when considering the existence of tolerance and the distinction between regular tenure and precarious tenure. It is essential that legal practitioners and parties involved in disputes have up-to-date knowledge of STJ case law, ensuring a better understanding and interpretation of the rules, as well as the fair resolution of disputes.

This scientific article addresses freedom of expression and thought as fundamental rights that must be protected for both parties involved. We will explore the effects, consequences and the importance of reciprocity between those who exercise these rights. In addition, we will highlight the need for balance in the constitutional protection of these principles, considering the context presented. Freedom of expression and thought are fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, however, it is essential to note that the protection of these rights covers both parties involved in a communication context. In this article, we will explore the effects, consequences and importance of reciprocity between those who exercise these rights and highlight the need for balance in the constitutional protection of these principles. 1. Freedom of Expression and Thought as Fundamental Rights: Freedom of expression and thought are pillars of democracy and guarantee the possibility of expressing opinions, ideas and thoughts without prior censorship. These rights are fundamental for the exercise of citizenship and the promotion of plural and open public debate. 2. Reciprocity as a Principle in Freedom of Expression and Thought: Reciprocity plays an essential role in the exercise of freedom of expression and thought. This is the principle of respecting the right of others to express their opinions, just as one has the right to express one's own ideas. Reciprocity implies recognizing that an individual's freedom finds its limits when it interferes with the rights and dignity of the other. 3. Equilibrium in Constitutional Protection: While freedom of expression and thought are fundamental rights, it is important to note that constitutional protection should not favor just one of the parties involved. The balance in the protection of fundamental rights seeks to ensure that none of the individuals involved exercise their freedom in an abusive or harmful way to the rights and interests of the other. 4. Effects and Consequences: The effects of freedom of expression and thought can have significant impacts on society. Public demonstrations can lead to social change, promote important debates and even influence political decisions. However, the consequences of these rights must also be considered, especially when there are violations of the rights of third parties, moral damages or incitement to hatred and violence. 5. Mutual Responsibility: The constitutional protection of fundamental rights requires the observance of reciprocal responsibility between those who exercise freedom of expression and thought. Both parties must be guided by mutual respect, avoiding abuse, defamation, slander and other forms of violation of rights. Liability for the violation of these rights may result in civil, administrative and criminal penalties. Conclusion: Freedom of expression and thought are fundamental rights that must be protected for both parties involved in a communication context. Reciprocity in these rights implies mutual respect and consideration of the limits of others. The balance in the constitutional protection of these principles is fundamental to guarantee a democratic and harmonious coexistence. Mutual responsibility among those who exercise freedom of expression and thought is essential to avoid abuses and violations of the rights of others. Thus, it is necessary that the civil, administrative and criminal spheres act in line with the legislation, jurisprudence and understanding of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) in order to promote this balance and ensure the full exercise of these fundamental rights.

This scientific article aims to analyze the differences between non-existent and null sentences, highlighting their legal consequences in the context of the hypotheses for the appropriateness of the rescission action for offense to the legal norm. The legal and doctrinal foundations that support the existence of these categories will be addressed, as well as the practical implications that arise from each of them, especially with regard to the possibility of rescinding these sentences. Judicial sentences play a fundamental role in the legal system, guaranteeing the effectiveness of law in a society. However, not all sentences are valid, and it is important to distinguish between nonexistent and null sentences. In this article, we will examine the differences between these categories, their legal consequences and, specifically, we will discuss the possibility of using rescissory action as a means of rescinding judgments that offended legal norms. 1. Nonexistent Sentences: Non-existent judgments are those that lack legal existence since their delivery. They are considered null from the beginning, since they violate essential requirements for the validity of the judicial decision, such as absolute competence, form or essential element of the act. In this context, the rescission action is not applicable, as these sentences do not produce any effect in the legal system. 2. Null Sentences: Null sentences, in turn, have legal existence, but were handed down with some defect that makes them invalid. In these cases, it is possible to use the rescission action as a means of rescinding these judgments when there is a direct or frontal offense against a legal rule, provided that a period of two years is observed from the final and unappealable decision. Rescissory action allows a null judgment to be effectively rescinded and its legal result undone. 3. Hypotheses of Pertinence of Rescissory Action for Offense to Legal Standard: A rescission action for violating the legal norm is an exceptional measure that aims to correct serious and manifest errors committed in judicial decisions. The hypotheses for this action are provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure and require that the sentence has directly offended legal or constitutional provisions, causing damage to the parties involved. These hypotheses must be interpreted in a restrictive way, guaranteeing legal certainty and the stability of judicial decisions. 4. Legal Consequences and Practical Implications: Non-existent judgments, as they are not valid from the outset, do not generate effects in the legal system, and it is not necessary to formally annul them. On the other hand, null sentences, although they have a legal existence, can be rescinded through rescission action, if the violation of the legal norm is proven. It is important to emphasize that the rescission of a null judgment does not necessarily imply the invalidity of all decisions taken based on it, requiring a thorough examination of the case in question. Conclusion: The judgments judged by the Judiciary can be classified as non-existent or null, each with its particularities and legal consequences. While non-existent judgments are not valid from the outset, null judgments have legal existence, but may be subject to rescission action if there is a direct offense to the legal norm. The use of rescission action is an exceptional measure, which aims to correct serious and manifest errors committed in judicial decisions. The in-depth study of the legal and doctrinal foundations related to these categories and the rescission action contributes to a better understanding of the legal consequences and practical implications arising from non-existent, null sentences and their possibility of rescission for violating the legal norm.

The promise to buy and sell land without approval from public bodies is a complex issue in the field of real estate law, raising questions about its validity and legal consequences. In this article, we will address in a concatenated and legal way the main points related to this topic, presenting arguments and analyzes based on jurisprudential understandings. 1. Legal Basis: To understand the promise to buy and sell land without approval, it is necessary to refer to the Brazilian Civil Code, more specifically to article 1.417. This legal device establishes that the promise of purchase and sale is a preliminary contract that creates obligations for both parties, with a view to a future purchase and sale agreement. However, the validity of this contract is subject to the approval of the land by the competent bodies. 2. Precarious Possession: In the context of promising to buy and sell land without approval, both buyer and seller face poor tenure. This means that they are in possession of the land but do not have the legal documentation that proves their ownership. Therefore, both are in a situation of uncertainty regarding the legal security of the property. 3. Temporal Lapse and Usucapion: In cases of promise to buy and sell land without approval, the buyer may seek the acquisition of the land through the institute of adverse possession. It is a means of acquiring property through prolonged possession of the asset, as long as the legal requirements are met. However, it is essential to note that the time period required for adverse possession varies according to the type of adverse possession applicable to the case. In the case of land without approval, extraordinary adverse possession may be a viable option, demanding the quiet and peaceful possession of the land for at least 15 years. 4. Regularization and REURB: In turn, the seller of land without approval has the possibility of seeking regularization with the competent bodies. An alternative is the Urban Land Regularization (REURB), provided for in Law No. 13,465/2017. The REURB aims to promote the legal regularization of informal urban centers, providing legal security to the occupants of these lands. Through this procedure, the seller can obtain the necessary approvals and documentation to regularize the land and, consequently, make the purchase and sale promise valid. 5. Position of the STJ: With regard to the statute of limitations and decay in the promise to buy and sell land without approval, there is no specific position adopted by the Superior Court of Justice (STJ). It is up to the lower courts to analyze previous judgments of the STJ and apply these precedents in similar cases. It is important to emphasize that each case must be treated individually, considering its particularities and the arguments presented by the parties involved. Conclusion: The promise of buying and selling land without approval from public bodies brings legal challenges and uncertainties as to its validity. Both the buyer and the seller find themselves in precarious possession, without full legal security over the ownership of the land. The buyer may seek acquisition through adverse possession, provided that the legal requirements are met, such as the minimum period of peaceful and peaceful possession. On the other hand, the seller can seek to regularize the land through the REURB, obtaining the necessary approvals and documents. It should be noted that the position of the STJ in relation to the prescription and decay of the promise to buy and sell land without approval is not defined, demanding the analysis of previous cases by the lower courts. In short, the promise to buy and sell land without approval requires a careful analysis, considering the legal basis, the jurisprudence, the time lapse necessary for the acquisition by adverse possession, the possibility of regularization by the REURB and the lack of a definitive position of the STJ.

This article aims to analyze in more detail the changes introduced by 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 term of residential lease, 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 Bond Insurance Another significant change brought about by the law is the possibility of using surety 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 divergences, discussions about deadlines and necessary requirements stand out for granting the eviction. 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> Conclusion: 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.

This article aims to analyze the arbitral award, its effects, the issue of non-appealability and its validity as a judicial enforceable instrument. For this, the legal and jurisprudential bases will be analyzed and, mainly, the position of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) regarding this subject. Arbitration is a dispute resolution method widely adopted by parties involved in disputes, offering speed, confidentiality and expertise in conflict resolution. The arbitral award, issued by the arbitral tribunal, is the instrument through which the dispute is decided. In this context, the discussion about the effects, non-appealability and validity of the arbitral award as a judicially enforceable title is relevant and current. The Arbitration Award and its Effects: The arbitration award has a jurisdictional nature, being endowed with decision-making effectiveness for the parties involved in the dispute. Its effects are equivalent to those of a sentence handed down by the Judiciary, and must be duly complied with by the parties. In addition, doctrine and jurisprudence have recognized the broad effectiveness of the arbitral award, allowing its execution in several countries, including through international conventions. The non-appealability of the arbitral award: The Brazilian legislation advocates the non-appealability of the arbitral award, limiting the possibilities of challenge. Only in exceptional cases, provided for in the Arbitration Law (Law No. 9,307/1996), is it permitted to file an annulment action against the arbitral award before the Judiciary. However, it is important to highlight that irrevocability does not affect the effectiveness and validity of the arbitral award as a judicially enforceable title. The Validity of the Arbitral Award as a Judicial Enforcement Title: The arbitration award, provided that it meets the legal requirements and is in accordance with the procedure established by law, is considered a judicially enforceable title, pursuant to article 515, item VII, of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). In this way, the arbitral award can be enforced like any other judicial enforceable title, allowing the creditor to seek the satisfaction of its credit before the Judiciary. The Position of the STJ: The Superior Court of Justice (STJ) plays a fundamental role in defining the understanding regarding the validity of the arbitral award as a judicial enforceable instrument. In several decisions, the STJ has reinforced the enforceable nature of the arbitral award, consolidating its position in favor of its validity as a judicial enforceable title and recognizing the effectiveness of arbitration as an alternative method of conflict resolution. Conclusion: In view of the above, it is concluded that the arbitral award plays an important role in the resolution of disputes, having legal effects equivalent to those of the court decision. The non-appealability of the arbitral award does not affect its validity as a judicially enforceable title, and its execution before the Judiciary is fully possible. The position of the STJ has reinforced the validity of the arbitral award as a judicial enforceable title, guaranteeing the legal certainty necessary for the use of this conflict resolution mechanism. Thus, it is essential that lawyers and legal practitioners are up to date on this topic, in order to better guide their clients and ensure the effectiveness of arbitration as an alternative method of dispute resolution.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has developed rapidly in recent years, bringing with it a number of opportunities and challenges. However, the lack of adequate regulation can generate ethical and practical problems that need to be addressed. This article addresses AI contexts, how lack of regulation can create a "lawless land" and the regulations needed to prevent these problems broadly and comprehensively. Such as ethics and governance, transparency, explainability with a view to responsible, safe and ethical use of AI and/or legal accountability, cybersecurity and monitoring and auditing, in addition to its positive effects as well as the negative consequences that AI can bring, a as its capacity for self-learning and constant evolution can surpass even the most optimistic expectations. Artificial intelligence can be defined as the ability of a machine or computational system to perform tasks that require human intelligence, such as understanding natural language, recognizing objects, making decisions and solving complex problems. This technology has been developing rapidly and has gained space in several areas, such as medicine, transportation, education, entertainment and industry. 1. Context: The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence and the lack of regulation Artificial intelligence has advanced impressively, opening doors to new possibilities in various sectors. However, this rapid evolution also brings challenges, especially with regard to ethics and safety. Lack of proper regulation can lead to a "lawless land" where AI is used without accountability, resulting in possible abuse and negative consequences. Positive points of Artificial Intelligence: AI has the potential to bring countless benefits to society. For example, it can automate routine and repetitive tasks, allowing human beings to focus on more creative and higher value-added activities. In addition, AI can improve the accuracy and speed of medical diagnosis, help predict and prevent natural disasters, optimize industrial production, increase safety in autonomous vehicles, and improve human-machine interaction. AI Global Effects and Offsets: AI has the potential to make a significant impact on the world stage. Its widespread use in many areas can improve people's quality of life, increase economic efficiency and transform the way we live and work. However, there are also concerns that AI could lead to societal problems, such as mass unemployment due to job automation, a widening divide between those who have access to the technology and those who don't, and the creation of autonomous weapons without adequate human control. Self-learning and constant evolution: One of the most fascinating characteristics of AI is its ability to learn and evolve. By using advanced algorithms and large amounts of data, AI systems can improve their performance over time, becoming more efficient and accurate in their decision-making. However, this autonomy can also lead to unintended consequences, as systems can develop harmful biases and act unpredictably. Unpredictable consequences and predictions: While AI has the potential to bring significant benefits, it is also important to consider its unintended consequences. The lack of regulation by law in the area of AI can allow the commission of crimes, such as unfair competition, invasion of privacy and plagiarism. Furthermore, the rapid advancement of AI and its ability to surpass human capabilities in certain areas may raise ethical and societal issues that have yet to be fully explored and understood. 2. Problems arising from the lack of regulation: The lack of regulation in the area of artificial intelligence can generate a series of ethical and practical problems. Without clear guidelines, developers can create biased AI systems, reproducing biases and discriminating against certain groups. Furthermore, the absence of regulation makes it difficult to be held accountable in cases of damage caused by AI failures or misuse of systems. There are also cybersecurity concerns, as the lack of guidelines can leave AI systems vulnerable to attacks and intrusions. Within the context of artificial intelligence, the lack of adequate regulation can generate a series of ethical as well as practical problems. It is essential to implement regulations that guide the use of AI in a responsible, transparent and safe way. Here are some regulations that would be interesting and necessary to avoid a "lawless land": 1. Ethics and governance: Regulations should establish sound ethical principles that guide the development and use of AI. These principles should ensure that AI is used to benefit society as a whole, avoiding discrimination, injustice and human rights violations. One example is the creation of ethics committees that can review and approve AI projects based on established criteria. 2. Transparency and explainability: Regulations should require AI systems to be transparent and understandable. This means that algorithms and models must be explained in a clear and accessible way, so that users and stakeholders can understand how decisions are made. Transparency should also cover data collection and use, ensuring that personal information is handled securely and in accordance with privacy laws. 3. Legal responsibility: Regulations should establish a clear division of responsibilities between developers, suppliers and users of AI systems . This is important to ensure that, in the event of damages or violations of rights, there is a legal framework in place to hold the parties involved accountable. It is also necessary to define the limits of responsibility and the level of autonomy that the AI can have. 4. Cybersecurity: Regulations should include guidelines and standards to ensure the security and protection of AI systems from attacks cyber. This involves measures such as data encryption, protection against hacking and ensuring the integrity of systems. 5. Monitoring and auditing: Regulations should establish monitoring and auditing mechanisms that allow continuous assessment of the performance and impact of AI systems. This helps identify potential issues, algorithmic biases, and negative impacts on society. The creation of specialized regulatory bodies is also a possibility, to ensure compliance with established laws and regulations. It is important to note that regulations must be updated regularly to keep pace with technological advances and emerging challenges. Furthermore, a collaborative effort between governments, industry experts, academia and civil society is needed to develop and implement these regulations in an appropriate and balanced way, ensuring the benefits of AI without compromising the safety and well-being of society. 3. Regulations needed to avoid a "lawless land To avoid a "lawless land" in the use of artificial intelligence, it is essential to establish adequate regulations. Several points should be considered, such as ethics and governance, transparency and explainability, legal responsibility, cybersecurity and monitoring and auditing. Ethically, regulations must ensure that AI is used fairly, without discriminating against groups or violating human rights. Ethics committees can be created to analyze and approve AI projects, taking into account the established criteria. Transparency and explainability are essential to ensure the trust of users and stakeholders. Regulations should require algorithms and models to be clearly explained, allowing decisions made by AI systems to be understood. The protection of personal data must also be addressed in these regulations. Legal responsibility is a crucial point. Regulations must clearly establish the responsibilities of developers, providers and users of AI systems, ensuring a fair system for dealing with damages and violations of rights. Boundaries of responsibility and autonomy must also be defined. Cybersecurity must be addressed through guidelines and standards that ensure the protection of AI systems from attacks. Measures such as data encryption, protection against hacking and systems integrity must be considered. Finally, monitoring and auditing mechanisms need to be established to continuously assess the performance and impact of AI systems. Specialized regulatory bodies can be created to ensure compliance with established laws and regulations. Conclusion: In a scenario where artificial intelligence develops rapidly, the lack of adequate regulation can generate ethical and practical problems. It is essential to implement regulations that guide the use of AI in a responsible, transparent and safe way. The regulations discussed, such as ethics and governance, transparency and explainability, legal accountability, cybersecurity, and monitoring and auditing, are examples of measures that can help prevent a "lawless land". Collaboration between governments, industry experts, academia and civil society is essential to develop and implement these regulations in an appropriate and balanced way. Regulation of artificial intelligence is necessary to ensure the benefits of this technology, while protecting society from potential negative consequences. It is critical to implement regulations to guide the responsible, transparent and safe use of AI. The regulations discussed address ethics and governance, transparency and explainability, legal accountability, cybersecurity, and monitoring and auditing. Collaboration between governments, experts, academia and civil society is essential to develop and implement appropriate and balanced regulations. AI regulation is necessary to ensure benefits and minimize risks to society. After all, each and every revolution brings new challenges and adaptations.

This article aims to analyze the effects and guarantees of incorporation and allocation in comparison to a Special Purpose Entity (SPE), highlighting the difference between these modalities in relation to communication with the main company (head office) of the entrepreneur in cases of future execution, whether due to the property under construction or debts of the entrepreneur for other obligations, including bankruptcy situations. For this, the legal foundations, case law and the understanding of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) on the subject will be addressed. Incorporation and allocation and SPEs are institutes used in the real estate market, seeking to provide guarantees and security to property developers and buyers. A comparative study of these institutes will be carried out, emphasizing their differences and analyzing their legal support through jurisprudence. 2. Embedding and Affectation: Effects and Positivity 2.1 Legal Rationale Law No. 4591/1964 (Real Estate Development Law) and Law No. 10931/2004 (Fiduciary Alienation Law) are the main legal bases on which incorporation and allocation are based. These laws grant legal effects and guarantees to entrepreneurs and buyers, such as individualization of assets and non-seizability of affectation assets. 2.2 Jurisprudence Seeking to support the analysis of the positivity of incorporation and allocation, it is essential to consider the divergences. The court has consolidated understandings related to the protection of the rights of buyers in cases of default or bankruptcy of the entrepreneur. Among the main jurisprudential decisions, as recommended by article 833, item XII, however, it must be weighed against the specific case. 3. Special Purpose Entity (SPE) 3.1 Concept and Characteristics The SPE is a management modality used to operate specific enterprises, separating them from the entrepreneur's main company. SPEs have their own characteristics, such as the separation of assets and autonomy in relation to the main company. 3.2 Comparison with Incorporation and Allocation It is essential to highlight the differences between SPEs and incorporation and allocation. While incorporation and allocation are based on specific legislation, SPEs are governed by contractual and statutory provisions. In addition, communication with the entrepreneur's main company is a relevant aspect to be considered. In the case of incorporation and allocation, the main company is protected by asset individualization, preventing problems related to other projects from impacting on a given project. However, in SPEs, the separation of assets may be less robust, allowing any debts or obligations of the main company to directly affect specific projects. Conclusion: The adoption of incorporation and allocation, as provided for in Brazilian legislation, provides effects and guarantees to both the entrepreneur and the buyer of real estate, aiming to provide legal certainty to the contractual relationship. The analysis of jurisprudence in relation to these modalities is relevant to base the performance of the actors involved in the real estate market. On the other hand, the use of an SPE can bring certain advantages in terms of management, but it is important to consider its limitation in relation to communication with the entrepreneur's main company in cases of future execution. Understanding the differences between these modalities is essential for proper and conscious decision-making by both entrepreneurs and property buyers.

This article aims at the legal and procedural aspects of extrajudicial adverse possession, analyzing its importance as an efficient alternative for the regularization of properties. The requirements, the steps of the procedure and the recent legislative and jurisprudential updates related to the subject will be addressed. Extrajudicial adverse possession, regulated by Law nº 13.105/2015 (Code of Civil Procedure), has been presented as a facilitating instrument for the regularization of properties. This procedure, which dispenses with the intervention of the Judiciary, establishes a more agile and less bureaucratic way to obtain property by adverse possession. 2. Extrajudicial Usucaption Requirements In order to carry out extrajudicial adverse possession, it is necessary to meet the general requirements of adverse possession, such as calm, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the property for a certain period of time, absence of opposition from third parties and proof of just title. In addition, it is imperative that the property is duly registered with the competent notary. 3. Extrajudicial Procedure The procedure for extrajudicial adverse possession begins with the preparation of a notarial act, drawn up by the notary public. These minutes are intended to verify the presence of all those involved and their agreement with the adverse possession request. This document will serve as a title to be presented at the real estate registry office, where the analysis and enforcement of the adverse possession will be carried out. 4. The Importance of the Notary Public's Performance The notary public plays an extremely important role in the out-of-court procedure of adverse possession. It is up to him to verify the correct documentation presented, the manifestation of the will of the interested parties and the existence of the necessary legal requirements. In addition, the notary has the power to refuse the request for adverse possession if legal elements are missing and must register this refusal in a notarial act. 5. Legislative and Jurisprudential Updates The jurisprudence has focused on important issues related to extrajudicial adverse possession, seeking the correct interpretation and application of the law. Among these discussions, the waiver of the consent of the spouse or partner, proof of ownership and analysis of documentation stand out. The consolidation of jurisprudential understandings has contributed to legal certainty and the effectiveness of extrajudicial adverse possession. Conclusion: Extrajudicial adverse possession has proven to be a viable and efficient alternative for the regularization of properties, as long as the legal and procedural requirements are obeyed. Through the action of the notary public, the process is simplified, ensuring speed and legal certainty. The harmonization of jurisprudential understandings has contributed to the consolidation of this important tool in the context of land regularization.

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> Conclusion: 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.