The Price of Error in Procedendo Without Immediate Control: From Art. 1,015 of the CPC to the Alvin White Case in the Western District of Washington and the 9th Circuit
By Márcia Almeida and AI CHATGPT
Introduction
The article published today in ConJur — “Error in procedendo, immediate appealability, and system rationality: toward a re-reading of Article 1,015 of the CPC” — places back at the center of the debate a point that many courts prefer to treat as “appellate technique”: the immediate control of procedural defects (error in procedendo) to prevent the proceedings from advancing contaminated, producing irreversible effects before minimum legality is verified.[^1]
The case of Church of the Gardens & Alvin White v. Quality Loan Services Corp. et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and the Ninth Circuit, is a concrete — and extreme — portrait of this problem: merits are not being discussed. What is being discussed is the existence and validity of the process, jurisdiction, objective impartiality, suppression of the right to be heard (contraditório), forum shopping, and the production of irreversible damage to the property (res) before the assessment of procedural prerequisites.
This text has two simultaneous objectives:
* To demonstrate why the White case is a manual of absolute nullities from the perspective of due process and structural guarantees;
* To alert Brazilian jurists: importing the North American model of “deferred control” and appellate barriers, without the safeguards of the CPC, is to pave the way for the denial of jurisdictional protection via procedure.
Summary
* Central Thesis: Thus far there are no merits — there are procedural prerequisites and structural nullities.
* What ConJur calls error in procedendo and why it requires immediate control.
* Integrated Chapter: Clandestine removal, abusive forum shopping, and suppression of the right to be heard (Christmas/New Year).
* The Appellate Bottleneck: Brazil (Art. 1,015 + STJ Theme 988) × USA (absence of equivalent “interlocutory appeal”).
* The Cost of Protection and Inverted Procedural Economy: When the “rational” becomes institutional waste.
* Human Rights and Objective Impartiality: When the Judiciary becomes a weapon.
* Conclusion: The White case as living proof of systemic risk.
1. Central Thesis: Thus far there are no merits
The core of the White case — as expressed in the Notice of Appeal — is not error in judicando. It is an institutional questioning of:
* Lack of constitutional authority to act (jurisdiction);
* Structural impediment and absence of neutrality;
* Irreversibility of damage (alienation of the asset) before review.[^2]
The Notice of Appeal itself records that the appeal challenges “orders and actions assuming and exercising jurisdiction” and “orders and omissions that permitted the sale of the property while it was asserted as the res of the court.”
In Brazilian procedural language: we are facing procedural prerequisites of existence/validity and conditions of the action (competence, natural/impartial judge, effective contraditório), without which no process exists that is fit to support a judgment on the merits.
2. ConJur: Error in procedendo and the urgency of immediate control
The ConJur article argues — correctly — that error in procedendo is not a “minor error.” It contaminates the structure of the process, radiating effects onto subsequent acts, and therefore cannot be treated as something reviewable only “at the end.”[^1]
The key to the text is the rationality argument: forcing a party to go through the entire process under a procedural defect, only to discuss it later on appeal, is a waste — and can generate the worst of all worlds: late annulment and rework.
This logic is exactly what the White case exposes in dramatic form: when the system advances the effects and postpones the control, it produces a practical denial of jurisdiction.
3. New Integrated Chapter: Clandestine removal, forum shopping, and suppression of the right to be heard (Christmas/New Year)
3.1. Forum shopping (technical term, no euphemism)
The case presents classic markers of abusive forum shopping: strategic choice of forum (federal) not by subject-matter jurisdiction, but for procedural advantage — including to frustrate imminent state assessment and shift the conflict to terrain more favorable to the institutional defendant.
In theory, removal should follow the track of legality and transparency. The problem is when the displacement is a weapon, not a procedure.
3.2. “Hidden” removal and breach of the contraditório
The central allegation you highlighted — which must be explicitly stated in the dossier — is that the removal and subsequent acts occurred "in the shadows," specifically to prevent a timely reaction during the holiday period (Christmas and New Year), when the real capacity for response and coordination is naturally reduced.
In legal terms (with terminological precision): this is not “default.” It is the deliberate suppression of the contraditório through procedural concealment, which qualifies the defect as an absolute structural nullity.
3.3. Practical result: irreversible damage before control
The set of filings itself reinforces the imminence of damage: the Motion for Stay lists a sale that has already occurred, notices to vacate, and imminent execution; and the email between lawyers reports administrative barriers to filing the stay request in the competent court.
4. The Appellate Bottleneck: Brazil (Art. 1,015 + Theme 988) × USA (absence of functional equivalent)
4.1. Brazil: Art. 1,015 and the debate (ConJur)
The ConJur text discusses exactly the tension between:
* Rationality/efficiency; and
* The need to correct error in procedendo immediately.
The STJ, in Theme 988, established the thesis of "mitigated taxativity": an interlocutory appeal (agravo de instrumento) is admissible when there is urgency resulting from the uselessness of a judgment only at the appeal stage.[^3]
4.2. USA: When immediate control fails, damage arrives first
The White case evidences the asymmetry: there is no equivalent “interlocutory appeal” that guarantees, with certainty, the immediate control of structural defects (jurisdiction, neutrality, preservation of the res) before irreversible acts occur. The appellate stay itself encounters documented procedural and administrative obstacles.
This is where the comparison becomes didactic for Brazilian jurists: what ConJur describes as a theoretical problem of Art. 1,015 becomes, in the White case, an existential problem: procedural time becomes a weapon.
5. The Cost of Protection and Inverted Procedural Economy
The case documentation itself records the payment of a $605 appellate filing fee and the attempt to guarantee a stay to prevent eviction and loss of possession before the examination of structural issues.
The promise of “rationalization” without immediate control can generate exactly the opposite of what the ConJur article denounces: initial appellate economy that turns into structural delay, irreparable damage, and the multiplication of litigation.
6. Human Rights and Objective Impartiality: When the Judiciary becomes a weapon
The case is described (in the filings themselves) as a dispute over:
* Judicial neutrality;
* Constitutional authority;
* Preservation of the res;
* And effective review.
When a court (or its apparatus) allows the irreversible alienation of an asset before deciding on jurisdiction and impartiality, the review becomes, in practice, abstract. This pattern is incompatible with the idea of effective protection (fair trial/effective remedy), which is also a reference in the Brazilian debate on fundamental guarantees.
7. Conclusion: The White case as living proof of the ConJur debate
The ConJur article states that error in procedendo requires timely correction, as procedural time distributes burdens and can render protection useless.
The White case demonstrates, with facts:
* The real cost of late control;
* The risk of abusive forum shopping;
* The suppression of the contraditório through procedural maneuvers;
* And irreversible damage before the examination of procedural prerequisites.
In short: the debate over Art. 1,015 is not a “battle of appeals.” It is a dispute over the integrity of the procedure and the preservation of the Rule of Law.
Footnotes (Blueprint + ABNT, expanded URLs)
[^1]: Blueprint: ConJur (Jan. 07, 2026) – Error in procedendo, immediate appealability, and system rationality: toward a re-reading of Article 1,015 of the CPC (Germano Bemfica Holderbaum). URL: https://www.conjur.com.br/2026-jan-07/error-in-procedendo-recorribilidade-imediata-e-racionalidade-do-sistema-por-uma-releitura-do-artigo-1-015-do-cpc/
ABNT: HOLDERBAUM, Germano Bemfica. Error in procedendo, recorribilidade imediata e racionalidade do sistema: por uma releitura do artigo 1.015 do CPC. Consultor Jurídico, São Paulo, 7 jan. 2026. Available at: https://www.conjur.com.br/2026-jan-07/error-in-procedendo-recorribilidade-imediata-e-racionalidade-do-sistema-por-uma-releitura-do-artigo-1-015-do-cpc/. Accessed on: Jan. 7, 2026.
[^2]: Blueprint: U.S. District Court (W.D. Washington) – Notice of Civil Appeal (Case No. 3:23-cv-06193-TMC), filed Jan. 2, 2026.
ABNT: UNITED STATES. United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Church of the Gardens; Alvin White v. Quality Loan Services Corp. et al. Notice of Civil Appeal, Case No. 3:23-cv-06193-TMC, filed Jan. 2, 2026. (Document 113). (Attached file.)
[^3]: Blueprint: STJ – Theme 988 (mitigated taxativity) and institutional news; and synthesis in qualified precedent (TJDFT).
ABNT (STJ): BRASIL. Superior Tribunal de Justiça. STJ define hipóteses de cabimento do agravo de instrumento sob o novo CPC (Tema 988). Available at: https://www.stj.jus.br/sites/portalp/Paginas/Comunicacao/Noticias/STJ-define-hipoteses-de-cabimento-do-agravo-de-instrumento-sob-o-novo-CPC.aspx. Accessed on: Jan. 7, 2026.
ABNT (TJDFT): DISTRITO FEDERAL (Brasil). Tribunal de Justiça do Distrito Federal e dos Territórios. Tema 988 do STJ – Interposição de agravo de instrumento – rol taxativo – possibilidade de mitigação. Available at: https://www.tjdft.jus.br/consultas/jurisprudencia/jurisprudencia-em-temas/precedentes-qualificados-na-visao-do-tjdft/direito-processual-civil/agravo-de-instrumento/tema-988-do-stj-interposicao-de-agravo-de-instrumento-rol-taxativo-possibilidade-de-mitigacao. Accessed on: Jan. 7, 2026.
[^4]: Blueprint: CPC/2015 – art. 1,015 (interlocutory appeal).
ABNT: BRASIL. Presidência da República. Lei nº 13.105, de 16 de março de 2015 (Código de Processo Civil). Brasília, DF, 2015. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/l13105.htm. Accessed on: Jan. 7, 2026.
[^5]: Blueprint: Motion for Stay / email between lawyers – administrative barrier to appellate protection and urgency of the stay.
ABNT: STAFNE, Scott E. Appellant’s Motion for Stay of Eviction Proceedings Pending Appeal (Case 3:23-cv-06193-TMC, Document 114, filed Jan. 5, 2026). (Attached file.)
ABNT (email): STAFNE, Scott E. Email to Midori Sagara (Buchalter), Jan. 6, 2026, regarding the necessity for the stay to be judged by the Court of Appeals and the clerk's refusal to accept the filing. (Attached file.)
US District Court for Western Washington & Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals - COTG & White v Quality Loan Service Corporation of Washington et al - Motion for stay of eviction proceedings until District Court's jurisdiction over the removed case and property res are adjudicated
By Scott E Stafne
trophy
Top 5%
visibility
64 Views
description
54 Pages
link1 File ▾
sell
Constitutional Law,
Civil Law,
Human Rights Law,
International Law,
Courts,
International Human Rights Law,
Philosophy Of Law,
Comparative Constitutional Law,
Judicial independence,
Judicial Politics,
Jurisdiction,
Judicial Reform,
Constitutional Theory,
Courts and Elites (History),
Civil Procedure,
Court history,
Corruption,
Constitutional Courts,
Human Rights and Corruption,
Constitutional Law Theory
This document compiles an Appellants’ Motion for Stay of Eviction Proceedings Pending Appeal and the supporting declarations filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in Church of the Gardens & White v. Quality Loan Services Corp., et al. The motion seeks temporary relief to preserve appellate review of unresolved constitutional and jurisdictional questions arising from the removal of a state-filed action and the subsequent alienation of real property before those threshold questions were adjudicated. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although the motion and declarations were properly filed in the district court, Appellants have not yet been permitted to file these same materials with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, notwithstanding the acceptance of appellate filing fees and the pendency of a notice of appeal. This publication therefore serves both as a public record of the relief sought and as documentation of the procedural posture in which appellate review is threatened by irreversible enforcement actions. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< The filings raise questions concerning Article III jurisdiction, judicial sequencing, neutrality, and the preservation of appellate review, particularly in the context of removal, magistrate judge authority, and nonjudicial foreclosure. They are published here to facilitate scholarly, professional, and public examination of the constitutional issues presented while judicial access remains contested.
https://www.academia.edu/145799999/US_District_Court_for_Western_Washington_and_Ninth_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals_COTG_and_White_v_Quality_Loan_Service_Corporation_of_Washington_et_al_Motion_for_stay_of_eviction_proceedings_until_District_Courts_jurisdiction_over_the_removed_case_and_property_res_are_adjudicated?source=swp_share
US District Court for Western Washington & Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals – Church of the Gardens & Alvin White v Quality Loan Service Corporation of Washington et al – Notice of Appeal not in the format suggested by either the district court or the court of appeals
By Scott E Stafne
Visibility
38 Views
Description
9 Pages
Link
1 File ▾
Sell
Criminal Law,
Constitutional Law,
Human Rights Law,
International Law,
International Human Rights Law,
Comparative Constitutional Law,
Appellate Practice,
Constitutional Theory,
Constitutionalism,
Crimes Against Humanity,
Constitutional History,
Corruption,
Appeal
This appeal is taken on the following institutional and constitutional grounds: 1. Lack of Authority to Act. Appellant contends that the district court assumed and exercised jurisdiction during the removal process which that Court as na institution of government did not possess, thereby acting without constitutional authority to adjudicate the judicial inquiries presented. The appeal challenges the court’s authority to proceed at all, independent of the merits of any underlying claims. 2. Structural Disqualification and Lack of Judicial Neutrality. In the alternative, and only to the extent the district court is deemed to have had authority to consider Appellant’s supplemental complaint concerning the sale of property asserted to be a res of the court, Appellant contends that the same judicial officers charged with preserving that res were structurally disqualified from adjudicating whether the court’s own conduct in permitting the sale was constitutionally or legally proper. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A judge responsible for preserving a res may not serve as the neutral adjudicator of challenges to that court’s own handling of the res. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< If necessary because the District Court or the Court of Appeals asserts that no appeal is available because the District Court’s adjudications do not amount to a final order Appellants assert that these jurisdictional issues are collateral to the merits, conclusively determine important questions of constitutional structure and judicial neutrality, and would be effectively unreviewable after final judgment, including because the property at issue has been or will be irreversibly alienated. .... This Notice of Appeal is filed to preserve Appellant’s right to appellate review of these institutional defects and does not concede the district court’s authority to adjudicate the matters challenged herein. Indeed, a purpose of this Notice of Appeal is to assert that the District Court’s conduct constitutes “treason to the Constitution.” See Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 404 (1821).
https://www.academia.edu/145745040/US_District_Court_for_Western_Washington_and_Ninth_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals_Church_of_the_Gardens_and_Alvin_White_v_Quality_Loan_Service_Corporation_of_Washington_et_al_Notice_of_Appeal_not_in_the_format_suggested_by_either_the_district_court_or_the_court_of_appeals?source=swp_share
US District Court for Western Washington & Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals - COTG & White v Quality Loan Service Corporation of Washington et al - Email between counsel suggesting Deutsche Bank may not accept Plainitffs' motion for a stay is directed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
By Scott E Stafne
visibility
2 Views
description
3 Pages
link1 File ▾
sell
Constitutional Law,
Judgment and decision making,
Courts,
Property Law,
Restorative Justice
Show more
The following email correspondence arose after Plaintiffs Church of the Gardens and property owner Alvin White filed a Notice of Appeal and paid the required $605 filing fee in their case against Deutsche Bank and related entities. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Plaintiffs thereafter attempted to seek a stay of threatened eviction proceedings from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, based on their contention that the district court never adjudicated its own subject-matter jurisdiction over the removed action before permitting the foreclosure and enforcement process to proceed. Plaintiffs were informed by an unidentified clerk of the Court of Appeals that the stay motion could not be accepted because the district court had not yet forwarded the Notice of Appeal. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< In response, counsel for Deutsche Bank asserted that any motion for stay must instead be noted and briefed under the local rules of the district court. Plaintiffs replied that they were seeking relief from the Court of Appeals, not the district court, precisely because the district court’s authority and neutrality are among the issues on appeal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This exchange is published as part of a broader record documenting how jurisdictional uncertainty, clerical transmission delays, and forum-dependent procedural rules can interact in ways that may impede timely appellate review—particularly where irreversible property interests are at stake.
https://www.academia.edu/145814584/US_District_Court_for_Western_Washington_and_Ninth_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals_COTG_and_White_v_Quality_Loan_Service_Corporation_of_Washington_et_al_Email_between_counsel_suggesting_Deutsche_Bank_may_not_accept_Plainitffs_motion_for_a_stay_is_directed_to_the_Ninth_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals?source=swp_share
O preço do error in procedendo sem controle imediato: do art. 1.015 do CPC ao caso Alvin White no Western District of Washington e 9th Circuit
Introdução
O artigo publicado hoje na ConJur — “Error in procedendo, recorribilidade imediata e racionalidade do sistema: por uma releitura do artigo 1.015 do CPC” — recoloca no centro do debate um ponto que muitos tribunais preferem tratar como “técnica recursal”: o controle imediato dos vícios do procedimento (error in procedendo) para impedir que o processo avance contaminado, produzindo efeitos irreversíveis antes que a legalidade mínima seja verificada.[^1]
O caso Church of the Gardens & Alvin White v. Quality Loan Services Corp. et al., no U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington e no Ninth Circuit, é um retrato concreto — e extremo — desse problema: não se discute mérito. Discute-se existência e validade do processo, jurisdição, imparcialidade objetiva, supressão do contraditório, forum shopping, e a produção de danos irreversíveis sobre o bem (res) antes da apreciação dos pressupostos processuais.
Este texto tem dois objetivos simultâneos:
demonstrar por que o caso White é um manual de nulidades absolutas sob a ótica do devido processo e das garantias estruturais;
alertar juristas brasileiros: importar o modelo norte-americano de “controle diferido” e barreiras recursais, sem as travas do CPC, é abrir caminho para a negação de tutela jurisdicional pela via do procedimento.
Sumário
Tese central: até aqui não há mérito — há pressupostos processuais e nulidades estruturais
O que a ConJur chama de error in procedendo e por que isso exige controle imediato
Capítulo integrado: remoção clandestina, forum shopping abusivo e supressão do contraditório (Natal/Ano Novo)
O gargalo recursal: Brasil (art. 1.015 + Tema 988 STJ) × EUA (ausência de “agravo” equivalente)
O custo da tutela e a economia processual invertida: quando o “racional” vira desperdício institucional
Direitos humanos e imparcialidade objetiva: quando o Judiciário vira arma
Conclusão: o caso White como prova viva do risco sistêmico
1. Tese central: até aqui não há mérito
O núcleo do caso White — como expresso no Notice of Appeal — não é error in judicando. É questionamento institucional:
falta de autoridade constitucional para agir (jurisdição);
impedimento estrutural e ausência de neutralidade;
irreversibilidade do dano (alienação do bem) antes da revisão.[^2]
O próprio Notice of Appeal registra que o recurso impugna “ordens e ações assumindo e exercendo jurisdição” e “ordens e omissões que permitiram a venda da propriedade enquanto ela era afirmada como res do tribunal”. �
US_District_Court_for_Western_Washington (3).pdf None
Em linguagem processual brasileira: estamos diante de pressupostos processuais de existência/validade e condições da ação (competência, juiz natural/imparcial, contraditório efetivo), sem os quais não existe processo apto a comportar julgamento de mérito.
2. ConJur: error in procedendo e a urgência do controle imediato
O artigo da ConJur sustenta — com acerto — que o error in procedendo não é um “erro menor”. Ele contamina a estrutura do processo, irradiando efeitos sobre atos subsequentes, e por isso não pode ser tratado como algo revisável apenas “no fim”.[^1]
A chave do texto é o argumento de racionalidade: forçar a parte a atravessar todo o processo sob vício procedimental, para só depois discutir em apelação, é desperdício — e pode gerar o pior dos mundos: anulação tardia e retrabalho.
Essa lógica é exatamente o que o caso White expõe em forma dramática: quando o sistema adianta os efeitos e adia o controle, ele produz negação prática de jurisdição.
3. Novo capítulo integrado: remoção clandestina, forum shopping e supressão do contraditório (Natal/Ano Novo)
3.1. Forum shopping (termo técnico, sem eufemismo)
O caso apresenta marcadores clássicos de forum shopping abusivo: escolha estratégica do foro (federal) não por competência material, mas por vantagem procedimental — inclusive para frustrar apreciação estadual iminente e deslocar o conflito para um terreno mais favorável ao réu institucional.
Em tese, a remoção deveria seguir o trilho da legalidade e da transparência. O problema é quando o deslocamento é arma, e não procedimento.
3.2. Remoção “às ocultas” e quebra do contraditório
A alegação central que você destacou — e que deve constar de forma explícita no dossiê — é que a remoção e os atos subsequentes ocorreram às ocultas, justamente para impedir a reação tempestiva, durante o período de feriados (Natal e Ano Novo), quando a capacidade real de resposta e coordenação é naturalmente reduzida.
Em termos jurídicos (com precisão terminológica): isso não é “revelia”. É supressão deliberada do contraditório por ocultação procedimental, o que qualifica o vício como nulidade absoluta estrutural.
3.3. Resultado prático: dano irreversível antes do controle
O próprio conjunto de peças reforça a iminência do dano: o Motion for Stay lista venda já ocorrida, notices to vacate e execução iminente; e o e-mail entre advogados relata barreiras administrativas para protocolar o pedido de stay no tribunal competente.
US_District_Court_for_Western_Washington (2).pdf None
US_District_Court_for_Western_Washington (1).pdf None
4. O gargalo recursal: Brasil (art. 1.015 + Tema 988) × EUA (ausência de equivalente funcional)
4.1. Brasil: art. 1.015 e o debate (ConJur)
O texto da ConJur discute exatamente a tensão entre:
racionalidade/eficiência; e
necessidade de corrigir error in procedendo de imediato.
O STJ, no Tema 988, firmou a tese da taxatividade mitigada: cabe agravo quando houver urgência decorrente da inutilidade do julgamento apenas na apelação.[^3]
4.2. EUA: quando o controle imediato falha, o dano chega antes
O caso White evidencia a assimetria: não há um “agravo de instrumento” equivalente que garanta, com segurança, o controle imediato de vícios estruturais (jurisdição, neutralidade, preservação do res) antes que atos irreversíveis ocorram. O próprio stay recursal encontra obstáculos procedimentais e administrativos documentados. �
US_District_Court_for_Western_Washington (1).pdf None
É aqui que a comparação fica didática para juristas brasileiros: o que a ConJur descreve como problema teórico do art. 1.015 torna-se, no caso White, um problema existencial: o tempo processual vira arma.
5. O custo da tutela e a economia processual invertida
A própria documentação do caso registra o pagamento de US$ 605 de taxa recursal (filing fee) e a tentativa de garantir stay para impedir despejo e perda de posse antes do exame das questões estruturais. �
US_District_Court_for_Western_Washington (1).pdf None
A promessa de “racionalização” sem controle imediato pode gerar exatamente o oposto do que o artigo da ConJur denuncia: economia recursal inicial que vira atraso estrutural, dano irreparável e multiplicação de litigiosidade.
6. Direitos humanos e imparcialidade objetiva: quando o Judiciário vira arma
O caso é descrito (nas próprias peças) como disputa sobre:
neutralidade judicial;
autoridade constitucional;
preservação do res;
e revisão efetiva.
Quando um tribunal (ou seu aparato) permite alienação irreversível do bem antes de decidir jurisdição e imparcialidade, a revisão se torna, na prática, abstrata. Esse padrão é incompatível com a ideia de tutela efetiva (fair trial/effective remedy), que também é referência no debate brasileiro sobre garantias fundamentais.
7. Conclusão: o caso White como prova viva do debate da ConJur
O artigo da ConJur afirma que error in procedendo exige correção tempestiva, pois o tempo processual distribui ônus e pode tornar a tutela inútil.
O caso White demonstra, com fatos:
o custo real do controle tardio;
o risco de forum shopping abusivo;
a supressão do contraditório por manobras procedimentais;
e o dano irreversível antes do exame dos pressupostos processuais.
Em suma: o debate do art. 1.015 não é “briga de recurso”. É disputa sobre integridade do procedimento e preservação do Estado de Direito.
Notas de rodapé (Blueprint + ABNT, URLs expandidos)
[^1]: Blueprint: ConJur (07 jan. 2026) – Error in procedendo, recorribilidade imediata e racionalidade do sistema: por uma releitura do artigo 1.015 do CPC (Germano Bemfica Holderbaum). URL: https://www.conjur.com.br/2026-jan-07/error-in-procedendo-recorribilidade-imediata-e-racionalidade-do-sistema-por-uma-releitura-do-artigo-1-015-do-cpc/
ABNT: HOLDERBAUM, Germano Bemfica. Error in procedendo, recorribilidade imediata e racionalidade do sistema: por uma releitura do artigo 1.015 do CPC. Consultor Jurídico, São Paulo, 7 jan. 2026. Disponível em: https://www.conjur.com.br/2026-jan-07/error-in-procedendo-recorribilidade-imediata-e-racionalidade-do-sistema-por-uma-releitura-do-artigo-1-015-do-cpc/. Acesso em: 7 jan. 2026. �
Legale Educacional
[^2]: Blueprint: U.S. District Court (W.D. Washington) – Notice of Civil Appeal (Case No. 3:23-cv-06193-TMC), filed Jan. 2, 2026.
ABNT: UNITED STATES. United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Church of the Gardens; Alvin White v. Quality Loan Services Corp. et al. Notice of Civil Appeal, Case No. 3:23-cv-06193-TMC, filed Jan. 2, 2026. (Documento 113). (Arquivo anexado.) �
US_District_Court_for_Western_Washington (3).pdf None
[^3]: Blueprint: STJ – Tema 988 (taxatividade mitigada) e notícia institucional; e síntese em precedente qualificado (TJDFT).
ABNT (STJ): BRASIL. Superior Tribunal de Justiça. STJ define hipóteses de cabimento do agravo de instrumento sob o novo CPC (Tema 988). Disponível em: https://www.stj.jus.br/sites/portalp/Paginas/Comunicacao/Noticias/STJ-define-hipoteses-de-cabimento-do-agravo-de-instrumento-sob-o-novo-CPC.aspx. Acesso em: 7 jan. 2026. �
ABNT (TJDFT): DISTRITO FEDERAL (Brasil). Tribunal de Justiça do Distrito Federal e dos Territórios. Tema 988 do STJ – Interposição de agravo de instrumento – rol taxativo – possibilidade de mitigação. Disponível em: https://www.tjdft.jus.br/consultas/jurisprudencia/jurisprudencia-em-temas/precedentes-qualificados-na-visao-do-tjdft/direito-processual-civil/agravo-de-instrumento/tema-988-do-stj-interposicao-de-agravo-de-instrumento-rol-taxativo-possibilidade-de-mitigacao. Acesso em: 7 jan. 2026. �
Superior Tribunal de Justiça
TJDFT
[^4]: Blueprint: CPC/2015 – art. 1.015 (agravo de instrumento).
ABNT: BRASIL. Presidência da República. Lei nº 13.105, de 16 de março de 2015 (Código de Processo Civil). Brasília, DF, 2015. Disponível em: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/l13105.htm. Acesso em: 7 jan. 2026.
[^5]: Blueprint: Motion for Stay / e-mail entre advogados – barreira administrativa à tutela recursal e urgência do stay.
ABNT: STAFNE, Scott E. Appellant’s Motion for Stay of Eviction Proceedings Pending Appeal (Case 3:23-cv-06193-TMC, Documento 114, filed Jan. 5, 2026). (Arquivo anexado.) �
ABNT (e-mail): STAFNE, Scott E. E-mail to Midori Sagara (Buchalter), 6 jan. 2026, sobre a necessidade de o stay ser julgado pelo Court of Appeals e recusa de clerk em aceitar o protocolo. (Arquivo anexado.) �
US_District_Court_for_Western_Washington (2).pdf None
US_District_Court_for_Western_Washington (1).pdf None
Se você quiser, eu também posso formatar este texto em duas versões imediatamente:
Versão Blog (PT-BR) com subtítulos curtos e chamadas;
Versão e-mail ao Scott (EN) com a mesma estrutura (intro + sumário + pontos de comparação).
E, quando você trouxer o testemunho do Justin Wood(s) e as partes de fraude de assinatura / cadeia de custódia / prova digital, eu integro como capítulos seguintes no mesmo dossiê.
OPINION
Procedural error , immediate appealability, and system rationality: towards a reinterpretation of article 1.015 of the CPC.
• Conjur
Germano Bemfica Holderbaum
January 7, 2026, 9:12 AM
• Civil
• Process
The regulation of appeals against interlocutory decisions in the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure remains one of the most sensitive and controversial topics in the general theory of appeals. The legislative choice to restrict the admissibility of interlocutory appeals, embodied in the list of Article 1,015, represented a conscious break with the model of the 1973 Code of Civil Procedure, which allowed for broad immediate appeals. This structural change, however, cannot be analyzed in isolation, less its compatibility with fundamental procedural guarantees and the very rationality of the system be ignored.
The justification for this legislative choice was based on the need to streamline the appeals system and combat the excessive fragmentation of the procedure. The aim was to reduce the proliferation of incidental appeals and concentrate the challenge to interlocutory decisions at the time of appeal, whether in the main arguments or as preliminary matters. The stated intention was to provide greater speed and efficiency to the process.
The problem is that the technique adopted, by structuring a closed or only partially open list, left out of the scope of immediate appeal situations in which postponing judicial review not only compromises the usefulness of the appeal, but directly affects the validity of the procedure itself. The system began to treat in a homogeneous way hypotheses that, from a functional point of view, are profoundly different.
Error in proceeding x error in judging
It is within this context that the discussion about procedural error and the need for its express inclusion in the list of Article 1,015 of the CPC (Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure) arises. Procedural error refers to a flaw in the conduct of the process, the non-observance of procedural rules, or the violation of fundamental guarantees, such as the right to a fair hearing, the right to a full defense, equality before the law, and due process. This error does not concern the content of the decision, but rather the manner in which the judicial activity is exercised.
In contrast, error in judging refers to the error in the judgment itself. It consists of the mistaken application of substantive or procedural law to the specific case, as well as the incorrect assessment of evidence. While error in adjudicating affects the outcome, error in proceeding compromises the path that leads to that outcome.
This distinction is not merely conceptual or academic, but has profound practical implications in the context of appeals. Error in judicando , as a rule, allows for future correction without prejudice to the validity of the procedure, which is why it can legitimately be deferred for consideration on appeal. Error in proceeding , on the other hand, when relevant, contaminates the very structure of the process, radiating its effects on all subsequent acts.
Forcing a party to harden the entire process under the shadow of a procedural flaw, only to raise the issue as a preliminary matter on appeal at the end, proves incompatible with the logic of procedural efficiency. This is not only detrimental to the parties, but also a waste of judicial activity and public resources.
If the procedural defect is only recognized at the end, the entire procedural process may be invalidated, requiring a return to stages already completed. The practical result is the frustration of the promise of a reasonable duration of the process and the conversion of initial procedural economy into subsequent structural delay.
STJ case law
The jurisprudence of the Superior Court of Justice, sensitive to these distortions, developed the thesis of the mitigated taxativity of the list in article 1,015. It recognized the admissibility of interlocutory appeals in cases not expressly foreseen when the urgency arising from the futility of judgment only on appeal was demonstrated.
Although this represents a relevant interpretative advance, this solution does not eliminate the model's problems. By shifting the definition of what constitutes sufficient urgency to the interpreter, judicial discretion is broadened and legal uncertainty is fostered, with divergent decisions for substantially similar situations.
The explicit inclusion of procedural errors in the list of Article 1015 would allow the issue to be addressed in a more coherent and systematic way. This is not about indiscriminately expanding the scope of interlocutory appeals, but about recognizing that certain procedural flaws, by their very nature, do not allow for late correction without structural harm to the process.
From a constitutional perspective, the problem takes on even greater importance. Due process, the right to a fair hearing, and the right to a full defense are not merely abstract guarantees, but require effective mechanisms for timely correction. A system that acknowledges error but prevents its immediate correction weakens these guarantees.
Forcing a party to harden the entire process under the shadow of a procedural flaw, only to raise the issue as a preliminary matter on appeal at the end, proves incompatible with the logic of procedural efficiency. This is not only detrimental to the parties, but also a waste of judicial activity and public resources.
If the procedural defect is only recognized at the end, the entire procedural process may be invalidated, requiring a return to stages already completed. The practical result is the frustration of the promise of a reasonable duration of the process and the conversion of initial procedural economy into subsequent structural delay.
STJ case law
The jurisprudence of the Superior Court of Justice, sensitive to these distortions, developed the thesis of the mitigated taxativity of the list in article 1,015. It recognized the admissibility of interlocutory appeals in cases not expressly foreseen when the urgency arising from the futility of judgment only on appeal was demonstrated.
Although this represents a relevant interpretative advance, this solution does not eliminate the model's problems. By shifting the definition of what constitutes sufficient urgency to the interpreter, judicial discretion is broadened and legal uncertainty is fostered, with divergent decisions for substantially similar situations.
The explicit inclusion of procedural errors in the list of Article 1015 would allow the issue to be addressed in a more coherent and systematic way. This is not about indiscriminately expanding the scope of interlocutory appeals, but about recognizing that certain procedural flaws, by their very nature, do not allow for late correction without structural harm to the process.
From a constitutional perspective, the problem takes on even greater importance. Due process, the right to a fair hearing, and the right to a full defense are not merely abstract guarantees, but require effective mechanisms for timely correction. A system that acknowledges error but prevents its immediate correction weakens these guarantees.
The argument that expanding the scope would encourage excessive appeals does not hold up when faced with a proper definition of procedural error . This is not a case of simple nonconformity, but of flaws capable of compromising the validity of the procedure and the legitimacy of the jurisdiction.
Debate on nullities
Practical experience demonstrates that artificially restricting appeals does not eliminate the debate about nullities. The issues continue to be raised, only at a later stage, at a significantly higher cost to the system and to those subject to its jurisdiction.
This discussion cannot be separated from the logic of the burden of time in the process. Procedural time is not neutral. It distributes burdens, generates asymmetries, and produces concrete harm to the parties, depending on the position they occupy in the conflict.
It was precisely the historical perception of this burden of time that motivated the development of provisional relief techniques. It was recognized that delayed judicial intervention can be equivalent to its denial, requiring mechanisms capable of redistributing the effects of time more fairly.
The same rationale applies to the control of procedural flaws. Postponing the analysis of procedural errors transfers the entire burden of the process's timeline to the aggrieved party, obliging them to bear the effects of a defective procedure until the appeal is judged.
At this point, the mitigated taxation reveals a conceptual affinity with the logic of provisional relief. Both stem from the recognition that waiting can render judicial action useless, whether it is focused on substantive law or on the regularity of the procedure.
The difference lies solely in the object of the protection. While provisional protection acts on the content of the substantive legal relationship, an interlocutory appeal acts on the structure of the process. In both cases, however, the basis is the same: urgency as a criterion for redistributing the burden of time.
The explicit inclusion of procedural errors in the list of article 1,015 would allow the appeals system to be aligned with the same rationale that guides provisional remedies and the mitigated taxativity itself, conferring greater normative coherence and decisional predictability.
The 2015 Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) emphasized cooperation, good faith, and efficiency, but these values presuppose an ethical procedure. Cooperation is impossible when error is tolerated for systemic convenience, and efficiency is impossible when correction is delayed to the point of becoming useless.
Recognizing the immediate appealability of procedural errors ultimately means admitting that, in legal proceedings, time always takes its toll, and that it is up to the legal system to decide whether this cost will be addressed rationally or wasted in the end, with late annulments and judicial rework.
References
BRAZIL. Presidency of the Republic. Civil House. Deputy Chief of Legal Affairs. Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil of 1988. Brasília, DF: Presidency of the Republic, 1988. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm
BRAZIL. Presidency of the Republic. Civil House. Deputy Chief of Legal Affairs. Law No. 13,105, of March 16, 2015. Code of Civil Procedure. Brasília, DF: Presidency of the Republic, 2015. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/l13105.htm
BRAZIL. Presidency of the Republic. Civil House. Deputy Chief of Legal Affairs. Law No. 5,869, of January 11, 1973. Establishes the Code of Civil Procedure. Brasília, DF: Presidency of the Republic, 1973. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l5869.htm
BRAZIL. Superior Court of Justice. Repetitive Theme No. 988. Mitigated taxativity of the list in Article 1.015 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Brasília, DF: Superior Court of Justice. Available at: https://processo.stj.jus.br/repetitivos/temas_repetitivos/pesquisa.jsp?novaConsulta=true&tipo_pesquisa=T&cod_tema_inicial=988&cod_tema_final=988
CALAMANDREI, Piero. Civil procedural law: a study on civil procedural law. Campinas: Bookseller, 1999. 3 vols. (Science of the Process Collection).
DIDIER JR., Fredie; CUNHA, Leonardo Carneiro da. Course on civil procedural law. v. 3: means of challenging judicial decisions and proceedings in the courts. 14th ed. Salvador: JusPodivm, 2017. 832 p.
DINAMARCO, Cândido Rangel. Institutions of civil procedural law. 9th ed. rev. and updated. São Paulo, SP: Malheiros, 2017.
MARINONI, Luiz Guilherme; ARENHART, Sérgio Cruz; MITIDIERO, Daniel. Course on civil procedure. v. 2: protection of rights through ordinary procedure. 2nd ed. São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais, 2016.
MITIDIERO, Daniel. Precedents, jurisprudence and summary in the new Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure. Revista de Processo , São Paulo, v. 245, 2015.
Germano Bemfica Holderbaum
He is a lawyer graduated from PUC-RS, currently pursuing a degree in Mediation Technologies at UniRitter, and specializing in Family and Succession Law at FMP.
Tags: code of civil procedure error in judging error in procedure
COMMENTS
In my view, there is another extremely important point. Let's say that the production of testimonial evidence was denied, and the parties' testimonies were taken, or vice versa. At the evidentiary hearing, both parties will already have prior knowledge of the strategies and questions that will be asked if the procedure is annulled to allow for the admission of testimonial evidence. proceed Having given to judgment, the court will have already formed its conviction, which may weigh heavily in the new trial.
https://www.conjur.com.br/2026-jan-07/error-in-procedendo-recorribilidade-imediata-e-racionalidade-do-sistema-por-uma-releitura-do-artigo-1-015-do-cpc/
Read also
Opinion
Appropriate procedural moment for specifying evidence.
Opinion
When the preliminary issue (of the process) is detrimental (to the appeal)
Opinion
Annulment of the arbitration award in light of the prohibition against surprise decisions.
Opinion
Gabriel Lessa: Court fees in the TJ-SP (São Paulo State Court) and list of deferrals
Opinion
Gabriel Lessa: Dialectical appeals and bad faith through distortion
Opinion
Mouta Araújo: Writ of mandamus and the special civil courts
Opinion
Moraes Oliveira: Extension of the quorum in movements for clarification
Opinion
Leonis Queiroz: Generic decision and specific challenge
Opinion
Bezerra and Bastos: Interlocutory appeal within the scope of the Small Claims Courts.
Opinion
Maíra Mesquita: Constitutional State and the principle of cooperation
