In September 2026, the Special Court of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) established, in Theme 1,230, a binding precedent stating that, on an exceptional basis, it is possible to garnish wages to pay debts other than child support, even when the debtor’s income is less than 50 times the monthly minimum wage.
For businesses, although the discussion stems from the enforcement of civil debts, the main practical impact tends to occur in payroll, since court-ordered garnishment orders may be served directly on employers, requiring them to withhold a portion of the wages of employees who are debtors and deposit that amount with the court. In this scenario, strict compliance with the court order is essential to avoid two distinct risks: on the one hand, the company’s potential liability before the enforcement court for failure to comply with the order; on the other hand, the creation of an improper deduction and the consequent exposure to labor-related liabilities.
Background: What Was Under Discussion
Article 833, IV, of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) establishes, as a general rule, that wages, salaries, retirement benefits, and other forms of compensation are exempt from attachment. Paragraph 2 of the same provision sets forth two express exceptions: attachment for the payment of child support, regardless of its source, and attachment of the portion of compensation that exceeds 50 times the monthly minimum wage.
In practice, given that the minimum wage in 2026 is R$ 1,621.00, the limit of 50 minimum wages amounts to approximately R$ 81,000 per month, meaning that, for the vast majority of workers, the exception provided for in the law remained far removed from reality. In light of this, since 2018 the STJ had been allowing, in specific decisions, a certain degree of flexibility in the rule on exempt earnings to permit the satisfaction of non-alimony debts; however, the criteria used varied among the different courts and depending on the circumstances of each case.
It was in this context that, in its ruling on Case No. 1,230, the Special Court of the STJ examined whether the relaxation of the rule could also be applied to non-alimony debts when the debtor’s income was less than 50 minimum wages and, above all, what conditions would need to be met for the measure to be permitted on an exceptional basis.
Initially, the justice presiding over the case, Justice Raul Araújo, had proposed the adoption of objective criteria, including the preservation of a minimum subsistence allowance that could never be garnished and limiting the garnishment to a range between 35% and 45% of income.
| ! However, the wording presented in the concurring opinion of Justice João Otávio de Noronha prevailed ; it did not establish any predetermined percentages and placed the burden on the debtor to demonstrate any potential threat to his or her livelihood and that of his or her family. |
Before and After Case No. 1,230 of the STJ
The general rule remains that wages are exempt from garnishment, pursuant to Article 833, IV, of the CPC, since the law has not been amended and garnishment continues to be an exceptional measure. The main effect of STJ Precedent No. 1,230, therefore, was not to remove this protection, but to establish more uniform parameters for the exceptional situations in which the garnishment of wages may be permitted.
What has changed in this regard is the degree of legal certainty surrounding the application of the exception, which previously depended on criteria established on a case-by-case basis and now adheres to uniform requirements, particularly the following:
(a) evidence that other means of enforcement have proven unfeasible; and
(b) the preservation of a decent standard of living for the debtor and his or her family, so that the measure does not jeopardize the minimum necessary to maintain their standard of living.
| Previously (through September 2026) | Now (Case No. 1,230, STJ) | |
| General rule | Wages that cannot be garnished | It remains exempt from seizure—the law has not been amended |
| Non-food debt, income below 50 SM | Recognized in case law, with varying standards among courts | Permitted on an exceptional basis, provided that uniform requirements are met |
| Prerequisite | It varied depending on the court | Other enforcement measures must have proven unfeasible |
| Who feels the impact on their livelihood | Undefined | Burden of proof placed on the debtor |
| Discount percentage | Determined at the discretion of each judge | Determined on a case-by-case basis—the thesis does not set a minimum or maximum |
| Force of orientation | Precedents without formal binding effect | A repetitive legal argument that must be observed by the ordinary courts (Art. 927, III, of the Code of Civil Procedure) |
| Child support | Subject to attachment | No change |
| Labor-Related Credit | Subject to garnishment as child support (TST, Topic 75) | No change—the TST’s rules remain in effect |
Therefore, the company continues to rely on a specific court order, which must set forth the parameters for the discount and the corresponding court deposit.
Implications for Labor Law
Although STJ Ruling No. 1,230 deals directly with the enforcement of civil debts and has not altered the legal framework governing labor enforcement, the new guidance has significant implications for companies, particularly in areas related to payroll processing, compliance with court orders, and debt collection itself.
① The employer as the paying entity. It is possible that creditors—such as banks, credit unions, landlords, and service providers—will increasingly request wage garnishment as a means of satisfying their claims. Once the measure is granted, the court order will be forwarded to the employer, who must deduct the amount from the employee’s paycheck and deposit it with the court, strictly adhering to the parameters set by the judge. In practice, this deduction may coexist with other withholdings already applied to the same compensation, such as child support and payroll loans, which requires special attention to the order of priority and the calculation basis established for each deduction.
② The balance between complying with the court order and avoiding improper deductions. The employer does not determine, on its own initiative, the percentage or amount to be deducted, but must limit itself to complying exactly with what was ordered by the court. Failure to comply with or delay in withholding and depositing the amounts may result in the company being held liable before the enforcement court. On the other hand, withholding an amount greater than that determined, using a calculation basis different from that indicated in the order, or making a deduction without the support of a court order may constitute an improper deduction, in violation of Article 462 of the CLT, with the potential to give rise to labor liabilities.
③ Labor enforcement. In labor matters, a claim recognized in favor of an employee is treated by the Superior Labor Court (TST) as a payment of a maintenance nature and, for this reason, is already covered by the exception provided for in Article 833, paragraph 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Since TST Precedent No. 75, decided in March 2025, the attachment of up to 50% of net income has been permitted, provided that at least one minimum wage is preserved. This provision applies to salaries, pro-labore payments, and retirement benefits of partners and managers who have been subject to the piercing of the corporate veil, subject to the parameters defined by the TST.
④ The legal principle established in STJ Precedent No. 1,230 is binding on the general courts. In the Labor Courts, where the TST serves as the highest court, the STJ’s guidance tends to be used as supporting reasoning rather than as a binding precedent. Thus, in situations involving non-alimony claims pursued in the ordinary courts—such as, for example, loans granted to former employees or compensation for damages awarded in a civil action— STJ Theme 1.230 now serves as an additional tool for creditors to request the garnishment of wages, provided that the requirements established by the legal doctrine are met.
| ⚠️ It is important, however, not to confuse the two situations: STJ Precedent No. 1,230 concerns the exceptional possibility of attachment to satisfy non-alimony debts, while TST Precedent No. 75 is set within the context of the enforcement of labor claims that are of an alimony nature. |
Practical Recommendations
Given this situation, we recommend that the Human Resources, Personnel, and Legal departments establish a standardized internal process for receiving, verifying, and complying with court orders for the garnishment of wages.
Upon receipt of the court order, the company must not assess, on its own, whether the garnishment is appropriate or whether the specified percentage jeopardizes the employee’s livelihood. These issues must be raised by the debtor before the court responsible for enforcement. In principle, it is the company’s responsibility to comply with the exact terms of the court order, notifying the court of any operational difficulties or incompatibilities identified during payroll processing.
Adopting predefined procedures reduces the risk of operational errors and allows the company to comply with the court order without simultaneously creating labor-related liability resulting from incorrectly applied deductions. Among the key measures, we highlight:
i. Centralize the receipt of court documents through a single channel and verify their authenticity in the court system;
ii. Pay the exact amount or percentage specified, using the calculation basis indicated in the order (gross or net);
iii. In case of doubt regarding the basis for calculation, the order of priority among deductions, or the scope of the order, seek clarification from the court—and do not make a decision internally;
iv. Identify competing deductions (child support, payroll deductions) and record the order of priority applied;
v. Deposit the amounts into the designated account by the deadline and provide proof of payment in the case file;
vi. Inform the employee about the deduction, treating the information confidentially and in accordance with the LGPD;
vii. Upon termination, verify that the order includes severance pay before paying it;
viii. Never withhold funds without a court order or in excess of the specified amount (Article 462 of the CLT);
ix. For partners and executives with ongoing labor enforcement proceedings, assess their exposure regarding salary, pro-labore compensation, and retirement benefits in light of TST Ruling No. 75;
x. If the company is a creditor in a non-alimony debt case, it must document the unsuccessful attempts to use other enforcement measures before requesting a wage garnishment.
For companies, therefore, the main impact of STJ Ruling No. 1,230 is not the need to change compensation policies or standard payroll procedures, but rather the need to be prepared to respond appropriately to court-ordered garnishments that may affect their employees’ compensation.
Wow Labor Law Team at Araújo e Policastro Advogados is available to assist companies in analyzing court-ordered garnishments, establishing internal procedures to ensure proper compliance, and assessing the impact of the new guidelines on their payroll routines.
Authors:
Ana Lúcia Pinke Ribeiro de Paiva – apinke@araujopolicastro.com.br
Alexandra Rosman Scaramel – ascaramel@araujopolicastro.com.br