Coments on Special Appeals 1.819.075/RS e 1.884.483/PR

Authors

Keywords:

Airbnb, Regulamentação, Superior Tribunal de Justiça, Jurisprudência, Restrições

Abstract

Legislative’s inertia in regulate short or very short rentals caused the emergence of serious condominium conflicts, challenging the full exercise of the use and fruition of the realty by its owner, a core element of the constitutional right to property. With the supervenience of two relevant decisions of the Superior Court of Justice restricting the rights of the owner and expanding the rights of the community of joint-owners, it is imperative to understand the ratio decidendi of both to assess how and to what extent the judgment of similar cases may be impacted until this silence is broken. The conclusion reached is that, in the analysis of the matter, relevant constitutional issues were not considered. The methodology used - case study - had an exploratory outline (aimed at understanding the object), explanatory (sought to explain the topicality of the theme) and descriptive (presented the determining foundations of the decisions).

Author Biographies

José Luis Bolzan de Morais, Faculdade de Direito de Vitória (FDV), Espiríto Santo, Brasil

Doutor em Direito do Estado. Professor do PPGD/FDV e UIT. Pesquisador em Produtividade CNPQ. Procurador do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul junto aos Tribunais Superiores.

Bruno José Guzansky, Faculdade de Direito de Vitória (FDV), Espiríto Santo, Brasil

Doutorando em Direitos e Garantias Fundamentais pela Faculdade de Direito de Vitória (FDV). Mestre em Relações Privadas e Constituição pelo Centro Universitário Fluminense (UNIFLU). Advogado.

Published

2023-03-16

How to Cite

Bolzan de Morais, J. L., & Guzansky, B. J. (2023). Coments on Special Appeals 1.819.075/RS e 1.884.483/PR. Revista Brasileira De Direito Civil, 31(04), 215. Retrieved from https://rbdcivil.emnuvens.com.br/rbdc/article/view/857

Issue

Section

Jurisprudência Comentada