Lottery prize goes into inventory or not?
During the marriage and before her husband's death, the wife was the winner of a lottery contest in which she obtained the substantial sum of R$28.7 million.
The Lottery House
tags:
STJ
prize
STJ Decides Whether Widow's Millionaire Lottery Prize Comes Into Inventory
In the world of lotteries, where dreams can become reality in a matter of seconds, an intriguing case has attracted attention and become the subject of debate in the country's highest court. It is the story of a widow who won a fortune in a lottery contest while she was married under the mandatory separation of assets regime. Now, the Supreme Court of Justice (STJ) is deciding whether this millionaire prize should enter the deceased husband's inventory or remain exclusively with the widow. The case, which involves a substantial amount of R$28.7 million, has generated controversy and raised legal and ethical questions. In this article, we will explore in detail this intriguing case and the legal implications involved.
The Case
It all started when a couple decided to unite their lives under the mandatory separation of property regime, a type of marriage that prevents property communion between the spouses. However, in an unexpected event, the wife became the winner of a lottery contest, winning an incredible prize of R$28.7 million. This award was obtained during the marriage, but before the husband's death.
The debate arose when it was questioned whether this award should be included in the deceased husband's inventory, becoming part of the assets to be divided among the heirs, or whether the widow would be entitled to keep the entire amount for herself. The decision fell on the shoulders of the 4th Panel of the STJ, which began discussions on the case on a crucial afternoon.
The Judgment at the STJ
The ministers of the 4th Panel of the STJ looked into the case with the responsibility of deciding its outcome. The decision taken that afternoon would have significant implications not only for the parties involved, but also for Brazilian jurisprudence in relation to similar cases.
The court had to consider the marriage regime in which the couple was inserted - the mandatory separation of assets. In this regime, there is no community of assets between the spouses, which makes the issue even more complex.
The Monocratic Decision
The case's rapporteur, minister Antonio Carlos Ferreira, issued a monocratic decision that recognized the communion between the spouses in relation to the lottery prize obtained by the wife. According to the minister, even in the case of mandatory legal separation, the lottery prize is considered a common good, which comes into the couple's communion under the heading of 'goods acquired by eventual fact, with or without the work or expense involved. previous'. This is based on articles 271 of the 1916 Civil Code and 1,660 of the 2002 Civil Code.
The minister argued that, when it comes to assets acquired through unpredictable events, it is not necessary to analyze the participation of both spouses in obtaining them, that is, it does not matter if there was a common effort to win the prize.
The Contestation and Appeal
Minister Ferreira's monocratic decision was not accepted without challenge. There was an appeal against this decision, which was analyzed in a later session. During the discussion, minister João Otávio de Noronha raised some important questions.
Noronha argued that the main problem lies in determining who bought the winning lottery ticket. He questioned whether it would be possible to prove this information, especially considering the death of one of the parties involved. On the other hand, minister Maria Isabel Gallotti disagreed and claimed that proving who was responsible for purchasing the ticket would be a practically impossible task, even more so after the death of one of the spouses. She also noted that the value of the ticket was negligible compared to the prize.
The Debate Continues
Given the divergent opinions among the ministers, the suggestion arose to request a review, which would have postponed the final decision. However, the board chose to convert the appeal into a special appeal, returning the case to the rapporteur for a more in-depth analysis by the board.
The case continues to generate expectations and uncertainty regarding its resolution. After all, the STJ's decision will not only impact the fate of the R$28.7 million in dispute, but will also establish an important precedent in relation to the division of lottery prizes in cases of marriages with mandatory separation of assets.
Conclusion
The case of the widow who won a fortune in the lottery during her marriage under mandatory separation of assets is a fascinating example of the legal complexities that can arise in inheritance and property matters. The STJ's final decision will have significant ramifications for future similar cases and could set an important precedent regarding the division of lottery prizes in marriages under this regime.
As we await the court's final decision, the debate over whether the million-dollar prize should go into the late husband's estate or remain with the widow continues to involve legal, ethical and moral questions. Regardless of the outcome, this case will serve as a vivid example of how laws can be challenged and shaped by unique and unexpected situations.