Federal Constitution

Cahali, discourses on the nature of the legal fees borne by the loser in a judicial dispute with the following affirmation: The alterations operated for Law 8,906, in substance of legal fees borne by the loser in a judicial dispute, are dislocated clearly from clave of indemnity for the one of remuneration. They had left of being a conviction, destined to make entire the desfalcations suffered for the part, to be configured exclusively as paid for the work developed for the lawyer. That is, they had lost its indenizatria nature to assume the retribuitria nature (1997, P. 803). Wolf law N. 8.906/94 keeps agreement when commenting the same. Seno, let us see: The previous legislation established that the honorary ones fixed in the conviction against the losing party or defeated party, in the action, belonged to the prevailing party.

The specific Statute radically inverted the title of these honorary ones, namely, of the selling part for its lawyer. With effect, it changed the bedding and the nature of this conviction, leaving of being indemnity of the expenditures expended for the prevailing party to consist of part of remuneration of its lawyer, whose responsibility is imputed to the losing party (2007, P. 148). Thus, doubts do not have that currently the legal fees borne by the loser in a judicial dispute belongs to the lawyer and that they possess profitable and not indenizatria nature. The divergence analyzed and studied here appeared in the procedure of execution against the Public Farm, where, as already said, its credits, in rule, are paid for the chronological order of precatrio and, for exception, for Solicitation of Small Value RPV, in attention to determined in the article the 100 and its paragraphs of the Federal Constitution of 1988 (CF/88).