The 1st Civil Appeals Panel of the São Paulo Court of Justice (TJ-SP) granted an unemployed woman a waiver of court costs in a case challenging clauses in a consortium contract. A lower court had denied the request, citing a R$200 Pix transfer between her own accounts, her use of a privately hired lawyer and income of nearly R$85,000 a year before she lost her job.

In a unanimous decision dated October 19, the panel overturned the lower-court ruling, which had been issued on March 26 by the Small Claims Civil Court in Santo Amaro, in southern São Paulo. Reporting judge José Carlos de França Carvalho Neto said that adding up deposits and withdrawals does not show accumulated wealth or available funds to pay legal costs.

The judge noted that the law presumes an individual’s declaration of insufficient means to be true. That presumption can be overturned only by reliable, current evidence. A court may reject a request for free legal assistance only when the case contains objective evidence and the applicant has first been given an opportunity to document their financial situation.

Hiring a private lawyer, the ruling said, does not prevent someone from receiving a waiver. The Civil Procedure Code allows people to seek the benefit while represented by a privately retained attorney.

The panel also said the woman’s financial situation had to be assessed based on her circumstances at the time of the request, rather than her earlier income. The tax return relied on by the lower court covered 2024. Her digital employment record showed she was dismissed on August 14, 2025, and her bank statements showed that her salary stopped that month. She received severance pay, which was used for everyday and family expenses.

Her 2026 tax return, covering income received in 2025, reported R$38,966.73 in taxable earnings and R$15,498.91 in tax-exempt severance pay, with no assets or rights listed in her name.

The lower court had also pointed to the R$200 Pix transfer as evidence that she had failed to disclose information. Carvalho Neto said the documents addressed that concern, showing small, routine transactions, payments for basic electricity and water bills, and transfers to relatives for essential support. The accounts’ daily balances were routinely close to zero, he wrote.

The panel concluded that the evidence showed she could not pay the court costs without sacrificing basic needs. Requiring payment would therefore impair her constitutionally protected right of access to justice.

Sources: Folha Mercado.