Summary / Resumo (bilingual)
English Summary:
Due to the increasing number of reported fraudulent extrajudicial mortgage foreclosures, this work uses Artificial Intelligence to draft a model legal petition.
The petition is based on landmark decisions from the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court (STF) and Superior Court of Justice (STJ), as well as applicable Brazilian laws.
Additionally, it compares these with current U.S. foreclosure laws, focusing on Washington State statutes, constitutional provisions, and international human rights treaties.
This bilingual model aims to assist lawyers and researchers confronting predatory foreclosure practices in Brazil and the United States.
Resumo em Português:
Diante do crescente número de fraudes em execuções hipotecárias extrajudiciais, este trabalho utiliza Inteligência Artificial para elaborar um modelo de petição inicial.
A petição está fundamentada em decisões marcantes do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) e do Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ), assim como nas leis brasileiras aplicáveis.
Além disso, realiza uma comparação com a legislação atual de execuções hipotecárias nos EUA, com foco nas normas do Estado de Washington, disposições constitucionais e tratados internacionais de direitos humanos.
Este modelo bilíngue visa auxiliar advogados e pesquisadores que enfrentam práticas predatórias de execução hipotecária no Brasil e nos Estados Unidos.
FRAUDS IN FORECLOSURES — Using Artificial Intelligence to Draft Legal Petitions Against Predatory Foreclosures: A Comparative Test under Brazilian and U.S. Law
Models of initial petition for declaratory action of absolute unrepairable nullity of extrajudicial mortgage foreclosure, with request for inaudita altera pars preliminary injunction
Given the number of fraudulent extrajudicial mortgage foreclosures that have been reported to us, we used ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE to draft a model for a concrete case, initially based on decisions from the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court (STF) and the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), as well as Brazilian legislation.
Additionally, the model considers the laws in force in the United States, specifically in the State of Washington, using criteria extracted from concrete cases and opinions of renowned international jurists.
Example:
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (USA) — Exposing Procedural Abuse in Federal Litigation of Mortgage Foreclosure: Vallejo’s Motion to Strike and Request for Sanctions Against Fannie Mae’s Lawyer, by Scott E Stafne.
Summary prepared by Todd AI:
This motion alleges violations of various legal and ethical standards, including Rule 11, Rule 38, 28 USC § 1927, and California Rules of Professional Conduct.
It highlights how procedural abuses by corporate lawyers can obstruct justice in foreclosure cases, especially when legitimacy is questioned and pro se litigants face systemic disadvantages.
Original link: ACADEMIA.EDU
https://share.google/IoRFAdRaGc6SWjnOi
ATTENTION:
This is only a test on the use of artificial intelligence in law.
DO NOT DO ANYTHING WITHOUT THE GUIDANCE OF A GOOD LAWYER.
PETITION — USA
Below is the full initial petition drafted according to the professional legal style in the United States, incorporating:
- U.S. Federal Constitution (U.S. Constitution)[¹]
- Constitution of the State of Washington[²]
- Applicable federal and state laws
- International human rights treaties
- Bangalore Principles on Judicial Conduct
- Arguments and precedents used by Scott Erik Stafne and Meisam Aboutalebi in the context of extrajudicial mortgage foreclosure in Washington.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR [COUNTY NAME] COUNTY
[YOUR FULL NAME],
Plaintiff,
v.
[DEFENDANT BANK/MORTGAGE COMPANY NAME],
Defendant.
Case No.: [To be assigned]
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DAMAGES, AND CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS
I. NATURE OF THE ACTION
- This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages, arising out of Defendant’s unlawful, unconstitutional, and extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings conducted in violation of the United States Constitution[¹], the Washington State Constitution[²], applicable federal and state laws, and binding international human rights treaties[⁹][¹⁰].
- Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has engaged in conduct constituting:
- Violation of Plaintiff’s Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment;
- Violation of Article I, Sections 3 and 16 of the Washington Constitution;
- Denial of judicial review in violation of international human rights norms and Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[⁹];
- Erosion of protections under RCW 61.24 et seq., known as Washington's Deed of Trust Act (DTA)[³], as analyzed in Aboutalebi & Stafne, 2025.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. This Court has jurisdiction under RCW 2.08.010 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this case raises questions under the U.S. Constitution[¹] and federal law.
4. Venue is proper in this Court under RCW 4.12.025 because the real property that is the subject of this dispute is located in [County Name], Washington.
III. PARTIES
5. Plaintiff [Your Full Name] is a resident of [County], Washington, and is the legal owner of the real property located at [Full Address].
6. Defendant [Bank/Mortgage Company] is a corporation doing business in the State of Washington and claims to be a beneficiary under a deed of trust related to Plaintiff’s property.
IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
7. Plaintiff purchased the property at [address] on [date], securing a home loan evidenced by a promissory note and a deed of trust.
8. Without filing a judicial foreclosure action or obtaining court review, Defendant initiated a non-judicial foreclosure process under the Deed of Trust Act (RCW 61.24)[³].
9. The foreclosure process was riddled with irregularities, including:
- Failure to prove standing as a lawful beneficiary;
- Robo-signed documents and assignments;
- Denial of opportunity to challenge the default or defend ownership in court.
- As articulated in Aboutalebi & Stafne, 2025, this abuse of non-judicial foreclosure mechanisms constitutes an erosion of due process and the core functions of the judiciary.
V. LEGAL CLAIMS
Count I – Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (U.S. Const.)[¹]
Count II – Violation of Washington Constitution, Art. I §§ 3 and 16
Count III – Violation of RCW 61.24 (Deed of Trust Act)[³]
Count IV – Violation of International Human Rights Law (UDHR[⁹], ICCPR[¹⁰])
Count V – Erosion of Judicial Authority under Bangalore Principles[¹¹]
VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
a. Declare the non-judicial foreclosure proceedings null and void;
b. Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining Defendant from proceeding with the foreclosure;
c. Order compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
d. Award Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to RCW 4.84.330;
e. Grant any further relief that this Court deems just and proper.
PETITION — BRAZIL
The model was created with the assistance of JusBrasil Artificial Intelligence and ChatGPT.
Purpose:
To draft a petition with a request for inaudita altera pars preliminary injunction for a declaratory action of absolute unrepairable nullity of predatory mortgage foreclosure, based on illicit evidence such as forgery of the property owner’s signature and destruction of the original promissory note, relying on technical-scientific expertise and a statement from the plaintiff admitting the break of the extrajudicial title’s chain of custody.
It applies STF’s general repercussion themes 1238 and 1041 regarding inadmissibility of illicit evidence and imprescriptibility of the declaratory action of absolute nullity, using precedents from STF and STJ, including ADIs 7600, 7601, and 7608.
Initial Petition
DECLARATORY ACTION OF ABSOLUTE UNREPAIRABLE NULLITY OF FRAUDULENT EXTRAJUDICIAL MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE
With request for inaudita altera pars preliminary injunction.
HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE ____ CIVIL COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF [CITY/STATE]
[PLAINTIFF’S FULL NAME], [nationality], [marital status], [profession], holder of Identity Card RG nº [number] and enrolled in CPF/MF under nº [number], residing at [full address], with email [email], through his/her attorney (power of attorney attached), with office at [office address], respectfully comes before Your Excellency to file this:
DECLARATORY ACTION OF NULLITY OF MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE WITH REQUEST FOR URGENT PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION INAUDITA ALTERA PARS
against [DEFENDANT’S NAME], [qualification], with address at [address], for the facts and legal grounds below:
I – PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION INAUDITA ALTERA PARS
According to art. 300 of the CPC, the requirements for granting urgent relief are met: likelihood of right and risk of irreparable harm.
The likelihood of right is evidenced by:
- Graphotechnical expertise confirming forgery of the plaintiff’s signature on the alleged loan contract with mortgage guarantee.
- Statement from the plaintiff himself/herself admitting destruction of the original promissory note, violating the chain of custody of the title.
The risk of harm arises from the imminent expropriation of the plaintiff’s only family property based on a manifestly null extrajudicial title, causing large losses and irreversible damages.
Therefore, an immediate suspension of the mortgage foreclosure nº [number], pending before [court], as well as all expropriatory acts, is requested as preliminary relief.
II – FACTS
The plaintiff was surprised by a mortgage foreclosure based on a contract he/she never executed, containing a forged signature, as proven by technical-scientific report (attached).
Moreover, the plaintiff admitted destruction of the original promissory note, compromising the authenticity and enforceability of the title (attached).
III – LAW
A. Absolute nullity due to forgery and absence of valid enforceable title
Art. 803, I of the CPC:
“It is null the foreclosure if: I – the extrajudicial enforceable title does not correspond to a certain, liquid, and enforceable obligation.”
Jurisprudence: TJSP, Civil Appeal 1008129-92.2019.8.26.0007.[¹]
B. Inadmissibility of illicit evidence – STF themes 1238 and 1041
Federal Constitution, art. 5º, LVI:
“Illicit evidence is inadmissible in legal proceedings.”
STF Theme 1238:
“Illicit evidence is inadmissible in any administrative proceeding by the judiciary.”
ARE 1316369, Reporting Justice Edson Fachin, Plenary, decided 12/08/2022.[²]
“Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” Doctrine: The entire execution is contaminated by forgery of the initial title.
C. Absolute incompetence of the Federal Court
Art. 109 of the Federal Constitution: jurisdiction of the Federal Court only when the federal entity is a party.
Jurisprudence: TJPR, Civil Appeal 0106276-0.[³]
D. Non-prescriptibility of the declaratory action of absolute nullity (querela nullitatis insanabilis)
Civil Code art. 169:
“A null legal act cannot be confirmed nor validated by the passage of time.”
STJ – REsp 1199884/BA.[⁴]
IV – STF PRECEDENTS – ADIs 7600, 7601, and 7608
In the joint judgment of ADIs 7600, 7601, and 7608, the Supreme Federal Court upheld the constitutionality of extrajudicial repossession, with modulation of effects, establishing that:
- Repossession is valid only when there is no debtor’s resistance.
- Any opposition requires judicialization of the procedure.
- Fundamental rights of the debtor must be guaranteed: privacy, inviolability of domicile, broad defense and adversarial process.
Reporting Justice: Minister Dias Toffoli.
Source: Supreme Federal Court Portal.[⁵]
Application to the concrete case:
The foreclosure based on a forged title and faced with explicit debtor resistance must be suspended and declared null.
V – REQUESTS
In view of the above, Plaintiff requests:
- Granting of inaudita altera pars preliminary injunction to immediately suspend foreclosure nº [number] and all related acts;
- Summoning Defendant to respond within the legal term;
- Declaration of nullity of the foreclosure for forgery and use of illicit evidence;
- Recognition of absolute incompetence of the Federal Court, with remittance to the State Court;
- Condemnation of Defendant to pay costs and attorney’s fees, set at 20% of the cause value;
- Reservation of all means of evidence allowed by law.
Cause value: R$ [amount].
[City], [Date].
[Lawyer’s Name]
OAB/[State] nº [number]
ATTENTION:
THIS IS A TEST. DO NOT DO ANYTHING WITHOUT CONSULTING A GOOD LAWYER.
Footnotes
Brazilian Jurisprudence and STF Precedents:
¹ TJSP, Apelação Cível 1008129-92.2019.8.26.0007, https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/jurisprudencia/tj-sp/1239991297
² STF ARE 1316369, Rel. Min. Edson Fachin, Tribunal Pleno, 08/12/2022, https://portal.stf.jus.br/processos/detalhe.asp?incidente=5870271
³ TJPR, Apelação Cível 0106276-0, https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/jurisprudencia/tj-pr/4250970
⁴ STJ REsp 1199884/BA, https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/jurisprudencia/stj/16096034
⁵ STF Portal, ADIs 7600, 7601 e 7608, https://portal.stf.jus.br/noticias/verNoticiaDetalhe.asp?idConteudo=522539&ori=1
U.S. Law and Related References:
¹ U.S. Constitution, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
² Washington State Constitution, https://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx
³ RCW 61.24 - Deed of Trust Act, https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=61.24
⁴ Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972), https://supreme.justia.com/c
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário