ALERTA BRASIL : As conclusões teóricas e riscos sistêmicos apontados no artigo "A notificação eletrônica na mora fiduciária"r não são meras conjecturas acadêmicas.

Comparative Analysis and Legal Warning Report

To: Jurists, Magistrates, Lawyers, Legislators, Notaries, Registrars, and the General Population. From: Analysis based on the article "Electronic notification in fiduciary default" and on reports about the North American judicial system.

Date: September 29, 2025

Subject: Practical Proof of the Theoretical Conclusions on the Flexibilization of Procedural Guarantees and the Systemic Risk to the Brazilian Legal System.

1. Introduction

The present report aims to demonstrate that the theoretical conclusions and warnings presented by the author Rodrigo Dantas Azevedo in his article "Electronic notification in fiduciary default" are not mere academic conjectures. On the contrary, they find an alarming and practical proof in the judicial system of the United States, specifically in cases of foreclosures (mortgage enforcements), guardianship proceedings, and disputes in Family Courts. The analysis of these cases, denounced by numerous victims and by courageous lawyers like Scott Erik Stafne, serves as a dark mirror of what could occur in Brazil if the flexibilization of procedural guarantees and the suppression of essential formalities continue to advance, configuring the warning: "US Courts: I am you, Brazil Courts, tomorrow."

2. The Central Thesis of the Warning Article

Azevedo's article vehemently criticizes the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) decision that validated default notification by e-mail in fiduciary alienation. The author argues that, under the pretext of modernization and efficiency, such a measure:

● Threatens the fundamental right to housing: It facilitates the loss of the property, a family's most valuable asset.

● Affronts the consumer protection system: It ignores the digital, technical, and informational vulnerability of the common citizen.

● Weakens legal certainty: It replaces a formal and secure procedure (personal notification or with return receipt) with a flawed method subject to numerous variables (spam, access failure, lack of technical knowledge).

● Contradicts registry strengthening policies: It ignores the role of notaries and registrars as guarantors of public faith and the security of legal acts.

In short, the central thesis is that the suppression of formal guarantee stages, in the name of celerity, opens doors to abuse and injustice, weakening the most vulnerable side of the contractual and procedural relationship.

3. The Practical Proof in the United States

What Azevedo describes as a theoretical risk is a documented reality in the USA. The flexibilization and complexity of judicial procedures have created an environment where cunning maneuvers and the restriction of defense have become systemic. What follows are not isolated incidents, but patterns of abuse denounced by citizens and legal professionals.

a. Foreclosure Enforcements and Corruption

The 2010 mortgage crisis is a prime example. The automation of processes led to scandals like "robo-signing", where foreclosure documents were signed en masse, without verification, resulting in illegal foreclosures. This systemic fraud was enabled by a disregard for formal notification procedures.

Lawyers like Scott Erik Stafne have spent years denouncing what they argue is endemic corruption and a lack of legitimate jurisdiction in these cases, often facing judicial sanctions for raising these challenges. Their fight highlights a system where questioning the court's authority, even on constitutional grounds, is met with punitive measures, effectively silencing dissent and preventing accountability. This creates an environment where the "house always wins," leaving homeowners with little to no recourse.

b. Abuses in Guardianship and Conservatorship Cases

The guardianship system, intended to protect the vulnerable, has been weaponized to exploit them. Elderly and disabled individuals are stripped of their rights and assets in summary proceedings, often without due notification or the right to a full defense.

A stark, documented example is the case of Omana Thankamma and her son Jay Krishna in Washington State. Court filings reveal a desperate battle against a guardianship system they allege has isolated Ms. Thankamma and endangered her life, all while her family is kept at bay by procedural walls. Once under court control, professional guardians and their attorneys liquidate life savings, charging exorbitant fees approved by the very judges who appointed them. This practice consolidates a system that profits from the total subjugation of the individuals it is mandated to protect, demonstrating a catastrophic failure of due process.

c. Systemic Failures in Family Courts

North American Family Courts exemplify the dangers of judicial discretion without strict procedural safeguards. In high-conflict divorce and custody disputes, the system is often manipulated into a tool of attrition.

Renowned forensic psychiatrist Dr. Bandy X. Lee has provided testimony and written extensively on how family courts are failing to protect vulnerable parties, particularly abused women and children. She points to a systemic bias where claims of domestic violence are dismissed or even used against the victim, while "non-judge" actors (such as court-appointed evaluators with questionable credentials) wield immense power, often leading to children being placed in the custody of their abusers.

This crisis has ignited a powerful citizen backlash. A national movement of mothers is organizing to protest what they call "crimes against women and children" perpetrated within the family court system. They are scheduled to bring their grievances to the Senate on October 30, 2025, demanding accountability and the removal of judicial immunity for those who violate fundamental rights. This movement is a testament to the widespread perception that the family court system is not just broken, but actively harmful.

4. The Common Link: Restriction of Defense and Violation of the Natural Judge

The point of convergence between foreclosures, guardianship, and the abuses in the Family Courts of the USA is exactly what Azevedo's article fears: the failure of procedural guarantees. In all these cases, the victim is deprived of their fundamental right to be duly notified, to present their defense fully, and to be judged by an impartial judge bound by constitutional rules of jurisdiction. The system becomes a labyrinth where only the initiated (lawyers and agents of the system itself) know how to navigate, often to the detriment of the common citizen.

5. Conclusion: The Warning for Brazil

The North American experience is not an isolated case, but a practical and compelling demonstration of the risks pointed out by Rodrigo Dantas Azevedo. The cases and movements cited above are not mere anecdotes; they are evidence of systemic decay. The decision to make the notification of fiduciary default more flexible may seem like a small and modern step, but it is the first step on a dangerous path already trodden by others.

This report serves as a warning to the entire Brazilian legal community: the search for efficiency can never override legal certainty and fundamental rights. The protection offered by notaries, registrars, and legal formalities is not bureaucracy, but rather the citizen's last line of defense against arbitrariness and abuse.

To ignore these warnings is to allow the Brazilian justice system, tomorrow, to become a reflection of the worst of the North American system today.

6. Sources and Further Reading

● Guardianship Case of Omana Thankamma: Petition for Review, Supreme Court of Washington, No. 99904-0

● Dr. Bandy X. Lee on Family Courts: Analysis and testimonies can be found in various publications, including reports on unregulated child custody evaluations.

 Example of related research

● Mothers' Movement Against Family Court Corruption:

 Information on advocacy and proposed legislation like "The Family Justice Accountability Act" can be found on platforms like One Mom's Battle and through advocates' channels.

Relatório de Análise Comparativa e Advertência Jurídica 

por MARCIA ALMEIDA, com IA GEMINI e IA

CHATGPT 

Para:

Juristas, Magistrados, Advogados, Legisladores, Notários, Registradores, Brasileiros e a População em Geral.

De: Análise baseada no artigo 

"A notificação eletrônica na mora fiduciária: Ameaça ao direito fundamental à moradia e afronta ao sistema de proteção consumerista de 

Rodrigo Dantas Azevedo

Que analisa com olhar crítico a decisão do STJ que autorizou a notificação de mora por e-mail, ressaltando que estão em jogo o direito à moradia, a proteção do consumidor e a segurança jurídica.

25/9/2025"

NÃO SÃO MERAS CONJECTURAS ACADÊMICAS,  e estão robustamente

comprovadas nas denúncias de  casos de concretos de obstrução do acesso à justica e violação do devido processo legal, no sistema judiciário norte-americano.

Data: 29 de setembro de 2025

Assunto:

Comprovação Prática das Conclusões Teóricas sobre a Flexibilização de Garantias Processuais e o Risco Sistêmico para o Sistema Jurídico Brasileiro.

1. Introdução

O presente relatório tem como objetivo demonstrar que as conclusões teóricas e os alertas apresentados pelo autor Rodrigo Dantas Azevedo em seu artigo "A notificação eletrônica na mora fiduciária" publicado no Conjur, não são meras conjecturas acadêmicas. 

Pelo contrário, encontram uma comprovação alarmante e prática no sistema judicial dos Estados Unidos, especificamente nos casos de execução de foreclosures (execuções hipotecárias), processos de guardianship (tutela de incapazes) e disputas por guarda de crianças e adolescentes nas Varas de Família. 

A análise desses casos, denunciados por inúmeras vítimas e por advogados norte-americanos corajosos,  como Scott Erik Stafne, Paul Cook, pela Psiquiatra Forense  Dra. BANDY LEE, por  Janet Phelan, por mães,  pais, filhos, avós e vítimas da violação de direitos humanos, 

e analisada por juristas internacionais, como Meisam Aboutalebi e Osama Qatrani, e advogados norte-americanos que tiveram seus registros profissionais suspensos ou cancelados, serve como um espelho sombrio do que pode vir a ocorrer no Brasil, caso a flexibilização de garantias processuais e a supressão de formalidades essenciais continuem a avançar, configurando a advertência:

Tribunais dos EUA: Eu sou você amanhã, aos Tribunais do Brasil.

2. A Tese Central do Artigo de Alerta

O artigo de Azevedo critica veementemente a decisão do STJ que validou a notificação de mora por e-mail na alienação fiduciária. 

O autor argumenta que, sob o pretexto de modernização e eficiência, tal medida:

● Ameaça o direito fundamental à moradia: Facilita a perda do imóvel, o bem mais valioso de uma família.

● Afronta o sistema de proteção ao consumidor: Ignora a vulnerabilidade digital, técnica e informacional do cidadão comum.

● Enfraquece a segurança jurídica:

 Substitui um procedimento formal e seguro (notificação pessoal ou com aviso de recebimento) por um método falho e sujeito a inúmeras variáveis (spam, falha de acesso, falta de conhecimento técnico).

● Contradiz políticas de fortalecimento registral: Ignora o papel dos notários e registradores como garantidores da fé pública e da segurança dos atos jurídicos. 

Em suma, a tese central é que a supressão de etapas formais de garantia, em nome da celeridade, abre portas para abusos e injustiças, fragilizando o lado mais vulnerável da relação contratual e processual.

3. A Comprovação Prática nos Estados Unidos

O que Azevedo descreve como um risco teórico é uma realidade documentada nos EUA. 

A flexibilização e a complexidade dos procedimentos judiciais criaram um ambiente onde manobras ardilosas e o cerceamento de defesa se tornaram sistêmicos.

a. Execuções de Foreclosures

A crise hipotecária de 2010, citada no próprio artigo, é o exemplo mais direto. 

A flexibilização dos procedimentos de notificação e a automação de processos levaram a escândalos como o "robo-signing", onde documentos de execução eram assinados em massa, sem verificação, resultando em execuções ilegais que levaram milhares de famílias a perderem suas casas injustamente. A falta de uma notificação formal e inequívoca, como a defendida no artigo, foi um dos pilares que permitiu esse abuso em larga escala. A teoria do autor se comprova na prática: a ausência da formalidade garantidora resultou na violação massiva do direito à moradia.

b. Abusos em Casos de Tutela (Guardianship)

O sistema de guardianship nos EUA é frequentemente denunciado por advogados como Paul Cook, Scott Erik Stafne,  litigantes pro se, como Jayakrishnan Krishna Nair, e muitos outros,  como um campo fértil para o abuso judicial. 

Idosos e pessoas vulneráveis são declarados incapazes em processos sumários, muitas vezes sem a devida notificação ou o direito a uma defesa plena. 

Uma vez sob tutela, têm seus bens e economias de uma vida inteira liquidados por tutores profissionais e advogados, que cobram taxas exorbitantes com a chancela do tribunal. 

O cerceamento do direito ao juiz natural, justo e com jurisdição clara, é evidente. 

Manobras processuais impedem que a vítima recorra a outras instâncias, consolidando um sistema que se beneficia da vulnerabilidade daqueles que deveria proteger.

c. Disputas em Varas de Família (Family Courts)

As Varas de Família norte-americanas são outro exemplo prático dos perigos alertados.

Em disputas de divórcio e guarda de filhos, a parte com mais recursos financeiros pode usar o próprio sistema para esgotar o oponente. Manobras ardilosas, como moções protelatórias, exigências documentais abusivas e falsas acusações, transformam o processo em uma guerra de desgaste.

O juiz, muitas vezes sobrecarregado, acaba tomando decisões com base em informações parciais ou manipuladas. 

A ausência de um procedimento rigoroso e garantidor permite que o processo em si se torne a punição, violando o princípio do acesso à justiça e do devido processo legal.

4. O Elo Comum:

 Cerceamento de Defesa e Violação ao Juiz Natural

O ponto de convergência entre os foreclosures, a guardianship e os abusos nas Varas de Família dos EUA é exatamente o que o artigo de Azevedo teme: a falha das garantias processuais. 

Em todos esses casos, a vítima é privada de seu direito fundamental de ser devidamente notificada, de apresentar sua defesa de forma plena e de ser julgada por um juiz imparcial e adstrito às regras constitucionais de jurisdição. 

O sistema se torna um labirinto onde apenas os iniciados (advogados e agentes do próprio sistema) sabem navegar, muitas vezes em detrimento do cidadão comum.

5. Conclusão: 

O Alerta para o Brasil

A experiência norte-americana não é um caso isolado, mas uma demonstração prática e contundente dos riscos apontados por Rodrigo Dantas Azevedo. 

A decisão de flexibilizar a notificação da mora fiduciária pode parecer um passo pequeno e moderno, mas é o primeiro passo em um caminho perigoso já trilhado por outros.

Este relatório serve como uma advertência a toda a comunidade jurídica brasileira: a busca por eficiência não pode jamais atropelar a segurança jurídica e os direitos fundamentais. 

A proteção oferecida por notários, registradores e pelas formalidades legais não é burocracia, mas sim a última linha de defesa do cidadão contra a arbitrariedade e o abuso.

Ignorar esses alertas é permitir que o sistema de justiça brasileiro, amanhã, se torne o reflexo do que há de pior no sistema norte-americano hoje.

Referências

"Legal and Philosophical Critique of Non Judicial Foreclosure with Emphasis on the Church of the Gardens Case" by Meisam Aboutalebi

By Scott E Stafne

visibility

116 Views

description

4 Pages

Constitutional Law,

Human Rights Law,

International Law,

Property Rights,

Property Law

Show more

In this article, legal scholar Meisam Aboutalebi critiques the American practice of non-judicial foreclosure—both constitutionally and philosophically—with specific reference to Church of the Gardens v. Quality Loan Services, a case currently being litigated in the United States District Court for Western Washington. Without any prompting from those directly involved in the litigation, Aboutalebi reaches the same conclusion many people of faith, including the Church and its advocates, have long asserted: that the process violates both due process and fundamental principles of justice. What makes this article remarkable is that it comes not from inside the battle but from outside of it. When a detached legal thinker, grounded in constitutional law and moral reasoning, recognizes that courts are serving money changers instead of the People, we must pay attention because often the truth is clearer to those on the outside than to those sitting in judgment. Or as Kahil Gabran put it in his book The Prophet sometimes the mountain is clearer to the climber from the plain. Likewise, when a neutral scholar like Meisam Aboutalebi—standing apart from the legal conflict—recognizes the systemic bias of courts serving money changers instead of justice, it confirms what those in the fight have long experienced. Sometimes, it takes a voice from outside to reveal what those inside have grown too weary or too compromised to acknowledge. Aboutabeli's article is a reminder that truth, conscience, and justice still matter to the Peoples of the world—and that the People, when guided by principle and faith, often see more clearly than the institutions that claim the authority to rule. Read https://www.academia.edu/142907198/_Legal_and_Philosophical_Critique_of_Non_Judicial_Foreclosure_with_Emphasis_on_the_Church_of_the_Gardens_Case_by_Meisam_Aboutalebi?source=swp_share

Electronic Notification in Fiduciary Default: A Threat to the

Fundamental Right to Housing and an Affront to the Consumer Protection System

By Rodrigo Dantas Azevedo Rodrigo Dantas 

Azevedo critically analyzes the STJ's decision that authorized default notification by e-mail, emphasizing that the right to housing, consumer protection, and legal certainty are at stake.

Date: 25/9/2025

Abstract

This article critically analyzes the decision of the 2nd Section of the STJ in Special Appeal REsp 2.183.860/DF [1], which validated the notification of default by electronic mail to the fiduciary debtor. 

The research examines the impacts of this decision on the fundamental right to housing, consumer protection, and legal certainty in real estate contractual relations. 

Through an analytical-descriptive methodology, based on a bibliographic review, jurisprudential analysis, and statistical data, it is demonstrated that the flexibilization of notification contradicts constitutional principles and weakens the protective normative system established by the Brazilian legal order. 

The study concludes by asserting the need to revise the jurisprudential understanding, prioritizing the social function of the contract and the dignity of the human person.

Keywords:

Electronic notification. Fiduciary alienation. 

Right to housing. Consumer protection.

Legal certainty.

Table of Contents: 

1. Introduction. 

2. The fundamental right to housing and consumer vulnerability. 

3. The affront to the protective normative system. 4. Judicial statistics and banking litigation. 

5. Jurisprudence contrary to the flexibilization of notification. 

6. Critique of the economic analysis of law. 

7. The contradiction with the strengthening of the Brazilian registry system. 

8. Convergence with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. 9. Proposals for system improvement. 

10. Conclusion.

1. Introduction

The digital revolution has profoundly transformed contemporary legal relations, promoting greater celerity and efficiency in judicial and extrajudicial procedures. 

In the scope of Real Estate Law, this transformation is manifested through the implementation of electronic registry systems, digital protocols, and, more recently, in the validation of notifications by electronic means.

The decision of the 2nd Section of the STJ in Special Appeal REsp 2.183.860/DF [1], which validated the notification of default by electronic mail to the fiduciary debtor, represents a milestone in this technological evolution applied to law. 

At first glance, such a position suggests an advance in terms of modernization and procedural celerity, aligning with contemporary trends of digitalization of public and private services.

However, a more in-depth analysis reveals that such an understanding may contradict fundamental constitutional principles, affront provisions of the Consumer Defense Code (CDC), and weaken guarantees provided for in the fiduciary alienation law (Law 9.514/97) [2], the real estate development law (Law 4.591/64) [3], the over-indebtedness law (Law 14.181/21) [4], the civil framework for the internet (Law 12.965/14) [5], and the legal framework for guarantees (Law 14.711/23) [6].

More seriously, this decision presents a systemic contradiction with the policy of strengthening the Brazilian registry system, implemented through recent provisions of the National Council of Justice (CNJ), which aim to consolidate registrars and notaries as fundamental agents of legal certainty.

Furthermore, the flexibilization of electronic notification may compromise the commitments assumed by Brazil in the UN's 2030 Agenda, specifically concerning SDG 16 - Sustainable Development Goal 16 - Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions.

This study aims to critically analyze the impacts of this decision on the fundamental right to housing, consumer protection, and legal certainty in real estate contractual relations, also considering its incompatibility with public policies for institutional strengthening and the international commitments assumed by the country.

It seeks to demonstrate that the flexibilization of notification, although apparently beneficial from the perspective of efficiency, can compromise fundamental rights and create precedents detrimental to the consumer protection system and the coherence of national public policies.

2. The fundamental right to housing and consumer vulnerability

Housing, provided for in art. 6 of the Federal Constitution of 1988 [7], constitutes a fundamental social right, essential to the dignity of the human person. 

This right is not limited to the mere availability of a roof but encompasses adequate conditions of habitability, legal security of tenure, and protection against arbitrary evictions.

The constitutional enshrinement of the right to housing reflects the recognition of its importance for human and social development. According to Silva (2019), "the right to adequate housing is a fundamental human right that serves as the basis for the enjoyment of all other human rights." 

This perspective highlights that any measure that could facilitate the loss of housing must be analyzed with extreme caution.

The Consumer Defense Code (CDC), in art. 4, I, recognizes the vulnerability of the consumer in the consumer market, including technical, legal, economic, and informational dimensions. 

In the context of electronic notification, this vulnerability manifests itself in an even more pronounced way.

Technical vulnerability becomes evident when considering that not all consumers have sufficient knowledge to properly manage their electronic communications. Spam filters, connectivity problems, lack of familiarity with digital technologies, and even ignorance about the importance of regularly checking emails are factors that can compromise the effectiveness of the notification.

Data from the TIC Domicílios 2023 survey, conducted by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br) [8], reveal that only 81% of Brazilian households had internet access. Even more concerning is the fact that the use of electronic mail remains restricted and not widespread among the less favored layers of the population. The survey indicates that only 69% of internet users in Brazil use electronic mail regularly, and this percentage decreases significantly in social classes C, D, and E. Considering that real estate financing through the Housing Finance System (SFH) is primarily aimed at lower-income families, the adoption of electronic notification may create an additional barrier to effective access to information.

According to Claudia Lima Marques: "Vulnerability is not only technical or legal, but also informational and economic, and the supplier must adopt conducts that minimize risks to the consumer" (Contratos no CDC: o novo regime das relações contratuais, 9th ed. São Paulo: RT, 2021).

3. The affront to the protective normative system

The civil framework for the internet (Law 12.965/14) [5], recognized as the Brazilian "Internet Constitution," establishes principles, guarantees, rights, and duties for the use of the internet in the country. This norm is fundamental for the analysis of electronic notification, as it addresses crucial issues related to data protection and the digital rights of users.

Art. 8 of the civil framework guarantees the right to privacy and freedom of expression in communications as a condition for the full exercise of the right to internet access. This provision is relevant to the discussion on electronic notification, as it establishes that contractual clauses that violate these fundamental rights are null.

Furthermore, the civil framework reinforces that everything provided for in the CDC that is applicable to consumer relations via the internet must be strictly complied with. This normative convergence demonstrates that the flexibilization of electronic notification must respect the fundamental rights established in the digital environment.

Law 14.711/23 [6], known as the legal framework for guarantees, represents a significant reform in the Brazilian system of guarantees. This norm provides for the improvement of rules related to the treatment of credit and guarantees, promoting extrajudicialization and the strengthening of due process guarantees.

The legal framework for guarantees expands the competencies of notaries and registrars, promoting the improvement of the extrajudicial execution of credits with real guarantees. However, it is essential that these innovations are implemented with respect for the fundamental rights of consumers and the procedural guarantees established by the legal order. The convergence between the legal framework for guarantees and the issue of electronic notification reveals the need to balance the modernization of procedures with the adequate protection of consumer rights. Debureaucratization cannot mean the suppression of essential guarantees for the protection of the debtor.

Law 9.514/97 [2], in its art. 26, §1º, establishes that the fiduciary debtor must be personally summoned or notified by post with acknowledgment of receipt, ensuring legal certainty and the effectiveness of the notice. This provision is not merely formal but constitutes an essential safeguard to protect the borrower from potential abuses.

The requirement of personal or postal summons with acknowledgment of receipt aims to ensure that the debtor has unequivocal knowledge of the default and the possibility of losing the property. By authorizing the replacement of the postal notice with electronic mail, this essential formality is removed, weakening the consumer's position in the contractual relationship. The real estate development law (Law 4.591/64) [3] reinforces the need for publicity and formalization in real estate relations. Art. 43 establishes that "when the developer contracts for the delivery of the unit at a fixed or determinable price and term, even when an individual, the following rules will be imposed on them," including the observance of specific procedures for communications with the purchasers.

The suppression of formal notification stages weakens the reliability of the registry system and directly affects the security of legal transactions. The principle of publicity, fundamental in Real Estate Law, requires that relevant information be made available in a clear, accessible, and unequivocal manner.

Law 14.181/21 [4], known as the over-indebtedness law, represents a significant advance in the protection of the indebted consumer. This regulation imposes on the supplier the duty to adopt effective measures of information and prior negotiation, preventing situations of default and preserving the dignity of the over-indebted consumer.

Art. 54-C of the CDC, included by the over-indebtedness law, establishes that "the supplier must inform the consumer, previously and adequately, about the risks of contracting credit and about the consequences of non-payment." This provision highlights the need for effective and adequate communication, which can be compromised by electronic notification.

Furthermore, the said diploma imposes on the supplier the duty to adopt effective measures of information and prior negotiation, preventing situations of default and preserving the dignity of the over-indebted consumer.

The convergence of these norms highlights the existence of a consolidated protective system that seeks to harmonize the interests of creditors with the protection of debtors. This system is based on the premise that adequate and timely information is essential for the exercise of consumer rights.

The flexibilization of notification procedures represents a rupture with this normative framework, compromising the effectiveness of the established legal guarantees and creating precedents that can weaken the entire consumer protection system in the context of real estate relations.

4. Judicial statistics and banking litigation

Data from the "Justice in Numbers 2023" report, prepared by the CNJ [9], reveal a worrying picture of litigation in Brazil. Banking institutions are the main litigants, concentrating approximately 30% of the judicial demands in progress.

This percentage represents more than 20 million lawsuits involving financial institutions, highlighting the existence of systematic practices that generate conflicts with consumers. The concentration of litigation in banking institutions suggests structural problems in the provision of services and contract management.

The analysis of the data shows that the flexibilization of formal procedures tends to generate greater legal uncertainty and, consequently, more litigation. Electronic notification, due to its less formal nature and greater susceptibility to failures, can contribute to the increase in the number of judicial conflicts.

International experience corroborates this concern. Studies conducted in the United States indicate that the implementation of electronic notification systems without adequate safeguards resulted in a significant increase in irregular real estate foreclosures, generating substantial social and economic costs.

During the 2010 foreclosure crisis in the United States, it was documented that the flexibilization of notification procedures contributed to systemic problems in the foreclosure system. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported in 2011 that problems in documentation and notification procedures resulted in irregular foreclosures that affected thousands of families [10]. The American Congress's attempt to resolve documentation-related issues by passing H.R. 3808, which would have forced courts to recognize electronic and out-of-state notarizations, demonstrates the complexity of the problems generated by the inadequate digitalization of procedures.

The analysis of the American experience reveals that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) later implemented stricter rules to protect consumers, requiring lenders to provide clear and adequate notifications before initiating foreclosure proceedings [11]. This experience shows that the premature flexibilization of notification procedures can generate significant social costs and necessitate subsequent legislative corrections.

5. Jurisprudence contrary to the flexibilization of notification

The jurisprudence of the STJ, prior to the judgment of REsp 2.183.860/DF [1], had been consistently reinforcing the need for formal notification as an essential requirement for the consolidation of fiduciary property. This jurisprudential line reflected the understanding that the formality of the notification constitutes a fundamental guarantee for the debtor.

In REsp 1.846.331/SP [12], the Court expressly recognized that "personal notification or notification by post with acknowledgment of receipt is an indispensable requirement for the consolidation of the property's ownership in the name of the fiduciary." This understanding was reiterated in several other judgments, creating a solid and protective jurisprudence. The decision that validated electronic notification represents a significant paradigm shift that deserves careful analysis. This jurisprudential change could have profound implications for thousands of ongoing real estate financing contracts, affecting acquired rights and legitimate expectations.

A change in jurisprudential understanding, especially in a matter involving fundamental rights, must be based on solid reasons and consider the resulting social and economic impacts. The mere search for procedural efficiency cannot justify the relativization of constitutional guarantees.

6. Critique of the economic analysis of law

The decision's reasoning based on the Economic Analysis of Law, especially on the reduction of transaction costs, reveals an approach that privileges economic efficiency over the protection of fundamental rights. This perspective, although relevant, cannot override the principle of the dignity of the human person.

As observed by Souza (2022), "EAL should be used as a complementary tool, never as an absolute vector of decision, especially when fundamental rights and diffuse interests are at stake." The unrestricted application of economic logic can lead to the commodification of rights that should be protected by the legal order.

The pursuit of economic efficiency must be balanced with other constitutional values, especially when it comes to fundamental social rights. The reduction of costs for financial institutions cannot justify the reduction of protection offered to consumers.

The economic analysis of law, when applied appropriately, should consider not only the direct transaction costs but also the social costs resulting from the flexibilization of guarantees. The costs of future litigation, legal uncertainty, and the violation of fundamental rights must be included in the economic equation.

7. The contradiction with the strengthening of the Brazilian registry system

The CNJ has published several provisions that update and modernize the services of notary offices and real estate registries, with direct effects on the actions of registrars and notaries. These normative instruments aim to modernize registry services, but with a focus on maintaining essential guarantees and formalities.

The provisions have established rules on extrajudicial processes, including search and seizure and the consolidation of fiduciary property before the Office of Registry of Titles and Documents. This regulation demonstrates a clear concern with maintaining formal and secure procedures, aiming to strengthen the registry system as a whole.

The CNJ's policy of strengthening the registry system recognizes the fundamental role of registrars and notaries as agents of legal certainty. These professionals act as qualified intermediaries, ensuring the authenticity, security, and effectiveness of legal acts, especially in the context of real estate relations.

The strengthening of these institutions represents an investment in creating a more robust and reliable system for the protection of citizens' rights. The technical training and civil liability of these professionals constitute additional guarantees for the security of legal transactions. The authorization of electronic notification represents a flagrant contradiction with the policy of strengthening the registry system. While the CNJ seeks to consolidate registrars and notaries as agents of legal certainty, the STJ's decision allows for essential procedures to be carried out without this qualified intermediation.

This contradiction compromises the coherence of public policies and weakens the registry system that is being strengthened through the CNJ's provisions. The flexibilization of notification "bypasses" the registry institutions and their formal guarantees, contradicting the entire logic of institutional strengthening.

8. Convergence with the UN Sustainable Development Goals

Brazil is a signatory to the United Nations' 2030 Agenda, committing to the fulfillment of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Among these goals, SDG 16 - Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions [13] stands out, establishing specific targets for strengthening the justice system and institutions.

The 2030 Agenda has become the main reference for the formulation and implementation of public policies for governments around the world. The commitment assumed by Brazil requires that all policies and decisions be evaluated for their compatibility with the SDGs.

SDG 16 sets a target to "by 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration," reinforcing the importance of the registry function as a guarantor of fundamental rights. Furthermore, the goal aims to "promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels."

Extrajudicial services act in line with the 2030 Agenda, providing various free acts such as birth, death, and marriage registration and certificates, seeking to satisfy equal access to the issuance of essential documents for the exercise of citizenship.

The flexibilization of electronic notification can compromise the fulfillment of SDG 16 for several reasons: 1) It compromises equal access to justice: The digital divide is still a significant reality in Brazil, and electronic notification can deepen existing inequalities; 2) It weakens effective institutions: The decision contradicts the policy of strengthening registry institutions, which are fundamental for building an effective justice system; 3) It reduces inclusion: By prioritizing digital means, a significant portion of the population that does not have adequate access to technology may be excluded.

9. Proposals for system improvement

Recognizing the inevitability of technological modernization, it is possible to propose rigorous criteria for the validation of electronic notification that reconcile efficiency with the protection of consumer rights.

These criteria should include: a) Express confirmation from the debtor regarding the receipt of the notification; b) Use of certified delivery systems with proof of reading; c) Simultaneous sending through multiple channels (e-mail, SMS, registered letter); d) A differentiated deadline for response, considering difficulties in digital access; e) The obligation to attempt telephone contact before consolidating the default.

In addition to the validation criteria, it is fundamental to strengthen consumer protection mechanisms, including:

a) Creation of a national registry of debtors with updated contact information; b) Implementation of digital financial education programs; c) Establishment of specialized call centers for clarifications on notifications; d) Development of mobile applications and national websites for monitoring notification and property consolidation processes; e) Creation of mandatory mediation mechanisms before execution.

To resolve the identified contradiction, it would be necessary to:

● Technological integration with security: Develop systems that use the existing registry infrastructure to validate electronic notifications, maintaining formal guarantees.

● Strengthening registry intermediation: Use notary offices as certifying intermediaries for electronic notifications, leveraging their expertise in legal certainty.

● Alignment with the SDGs: Ensure that any technological modernization is compatible with the commitments made in the 2030 Agenda, especially regarding equal access to justice.

10. Conclusion

The authorization for the constitution of default by electronic means, although based on the search for celerity and cost reduction, represents a significant setback in the protection of fundamental rights. The analysis developed in this study demonstrates that such flexibilization violates essential constitutional principles and puts the social right to housing at risk. Contrary to strengthening legal certainty, electronic notification weakens the contractual balance, increases the vulnerability of the borrower-consumer, and frontally contradicts the protective norms established by the CDC, the fiduciary alienation law, the real estate development law, the over-indebtedness law, the civil framework for the internet, and the legal framework for guarantees.

The convergence of these norms highlights the existence of a consolidated protective system that seeks to harmonize the interests of creditors with the protection of debtors. The rupture with this normative framework compromises the effectiveness of legal guarantees and creates precedents detrimental to the consumer protection system.

The contradiction with the policy of strengthening the Brazilian registry system represents an even more serious aspect of the issue. Recent provisions by the CNJ aim to consolidate registrars and notaries as fundamental agents of legal certainty, but the STJ's decision allows essential procedures to be carried out without this qualified intermediation. This incoherence compromises the coherence of public policies and weakens the registry system that is being strengthened.

The incompatibility with the commitments assumed in the UN's 2030 Agenda further aggravates the situation. The flexibilization of electronic notification may compromise the fulfillment of SDG 16 - Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions, especially concerning equal access to justice and the strengthening of effective institutions. Brazil, as a signatory of the 2030 Agenda, must ensure that all policies and decisions are compatible with the Sustainable Development Goals. The statistical data presented reinforce the need for caution in implementing changes that could affect access to justice and the protection of fundamental rights. The digital divide is still a significant reality in Brazil, and the adoption of electronic notification can deepen existing inequalities.

The previous jurisprudence of the STJ itself demonstrated an adequate understanding of the importance of formality in notification, recognizing it as an essential requirement for the consolidation of fiduciary property. The change in understanding, although justifiable by technological evolution, cannot ignore the social impacts and risks to fundamental rights. International experience, especially the United States' mortgage foreclosure crisis, shows that the premature flexibilization of notification procedures can generate significant social costs and require subsequent legislative corrections. The implementation of stricter rules by the CFPB - Consumer Financial Protection Bureau highlights the need to balance technological modernization with adequate protection of consumer rights.

The application of the economic analysis of law, although relevant, must be balanced with other constitutional values, especially when it comes to fundamental social rights. 

Economic efficiency cannot be the sole criterion for making judicial decisions that affect fundamental rights. 

Thus, a review of this jurisprudential understanding is imperative, prioritizing the social function of the contract, the dignity of the human person, and harmonization with public policies of institutional strengthening. 

It is necessary to develop rigorous criteria that reconcile technological modernization with the effective protection of consumer rights, the strengthening of the registry system, and the fulfillment of international commitments assumed by Brazil.

 The protection of the right to housing, the maintenance of balance in contractual relations, and the coherence of public policies require that the formality and security of notification procedures be preserved. 

Only through this balanced approach will it be possible to reconcile technological progress with the protection of fundamental rights, the strengthening of institutions, and the fulfillment of the Sustainable Development Goals, maintaining confidence in the Brazilian legal system and its coherence with the international commitments assumed by the country. 

Now we must await the new positions of the Courts, in light of the recent changes and reaffirmations made by Law 14.711/23.

Bibliography

MORAES, Alexandre Nunes de. Direito Imobiliário e Registral na prática. 3rd Edition. Editora Imperium. 2024.

JUNIOR, Luiz Antônio Scavone. Direito Imobiliário. Teoria e Prática. 20th Edition. Editora Forense. 2024.

FERREIRA, Ruy Barbosa Marinho. Usucapião na Prática Forense. 2nd Edition. Editora Edijur.

2022.

ARECHAVALA, Luis. Alienação de Imóveis: Manual de compra e venda, permuta e doação. 1st Ed. Editora Lumen Juris. 2023.

SILVA, José Afonso da. Curso de direito constitucional positivo. 42nd ed. São Paulo: Malheiros, 2019.

SOUZA, André Luiz de. Análise econômica do direito e seus limites no contexto brasileiro: uma reflexão sobre a aplicação de critérios econômicos na interpretação jurídica. Revista Brasileira de Direito Econômico, São Paulo, v. 15, n. 2, p. 45-63, may/aug. 2022.

Footnotes

[1] SUPERIOR TRIBUNAL DE JUSTIÇA. REsp 2.183.860/DF. Relator: Ministro Marco Aurélio Bellizze. Segunda Seção. Julgado em: 14 jun. 2023. DJe: 19 jun. 2023. 

URL: https://processo.stj.jus.br/processo/pesquisa/?tipoPesquisa=tipoPesquisaNumeroRegistro&termo=202302482779&totalRegistrosPorPagina=40&aplicacao=processos.ea 

[2] BRASIL. Lei nº 9.514, de 20 de novembro de 1997. Dispõe sobre o Sistema de Financiamento Imobiliário, institui a alienação fiduciária de coisa imóvel e dá outras providências. 

URL: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l9514.htm

[3] BRASIL. Lei nº 4.591, de 16 de dezembro de 1964. Dispõe sobre o condomínio em edificações e as incorporações imobiliárias. URL: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l4591.htm

[4] BRASIL. Lei nº 14.181, de 1º de julho de 2021. Altera o Código de Defesa do Consumidor para prevenir e tratar o superendividamento. 

URL:

https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019-2022/2021/lei/L14181.htm

[5] BRASIL. Lei nº 12.965, de 23 de abril de 2014. Estabelece princípios, garantias, direitos e deveres para o uso da Internet no Brasil. 

URL:

https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2014/lei/l12965.htm

[6] BRASIL. Lei nº 14.711, de 30 de outubro de 2023. Dispõe sobre o aprimoramento das regras relativas ao tratamento do crédito e das garantias e às medidas extrajudiciais para recuperação de crédito. 

URL:

https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2023-2026/2023/lei/L14711.htm 

[7] BRASIL. Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988. 

URL:

https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm

[8] COMITÊ GESTOR DA INTERNET NO BRASIL. TIC Domicílios 2023: pesquisa sobre o uso das tecnologias de informação e comunicação nos domicílios brasileiros. São Paulo: CGI.br,

2023. 

URL: https://www.cetic.br/pt/pesquisa/domicilios/

[9] CONSELHO NACIONAL DE JUSTIÇA. Justiça em Números 2023. Brasília: CNJ, 2023.

URL: https://www.cnj.jus.br/pesquisas-judiciarias/justica-em-numeros/

[10] UNITED STATES. Government Accountability Office.

Mortgage Foreclosures:

Documentation Problems Reveal Need for Ongoing Regulatory Oversight. GAO-11-433. Washington: GAO, 2011. 

URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-11-433

[11] UNITED STATES. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. How does foreclosure work?

URL: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ask-cfpb/how-does-foreclosure-work-en-211/ 

[12] SUPERIOR TRIBUNAL DE JUSTIÇA. REsp 1.846.331/SP. Relator: Ministro Luis Felipe Salomão. Quarta Turma. Julgado em: 11 fev. 2020. DJe: 18 fev. 2020. URL: https://processo.stj.jus.br/processo/pesquisa/?tipoPesquisa=tipoPesquisaNumeroRegistro&termo=201903273874&totalRegistrosPorPagina=40&aplicacao=processos.ea

[13] ORGANIZAÇÃO DAS NAÇÕES UNIDAS. Agenda 2030 para o Desenvolvimento

Sustentável. Nova York: ONU, 2015. URL: https://brasil.un.org/pt-br/sdgs/16