A millionaire area in the interior of São Paulo is being the subject of a legal imbroglio with “obscure intentions”, according to one of the parties. It is about 94.9 thousand m2 (or 9.49 ha) in Vinhedo, which are part of the Hopi Hari park, the current owner of the place. The land is described by real estate experts as a R$60 million diamond.
It is located in the Serra Azul Tourist District, a project approved in 2021 by then-governor João Doria, who designed what would be the largest tourist and entertainment complex in the country. In the last two years, R$ 700 million has been invested in the four municipalities around the park, more specifically, in a golf course owned by former player Jack Nicklaus, a Cyan Resort and new Premium Outlet stores. By
the end of 2026, an investment of R$ 1.8 billion is projected, with three more hotels, Adventure Mall theme park, expansion of an equestrian race, as well as train tracks of the Fruit Circuit. Currently, about 10 million people a year visit the Hopi Hari and Wet’n Wild, which are already part of the District.
Understand the case
. A plot of land owned by Hopi Hari, with 9.49 hectares and valued at R$ 60 million, becomes the center of legal dispute, after being used as collateral in a loan with Banco Safra.
tag. After the bank grants a letter of discharge of the debt, Hopi Hari is informed about a credit assignment acquired by Favi Empreendimentos.
tag. Favi, a company without employees and with a suspended CNPJ, claims rights over the land, after the Hopi Hari went to court alleging undue charges. Favi and Safra are the defendants in the lawsuit.
tag. The bank recognizes its mistake in discharging the debt and annuls the issued document. Even questioning the amounts charged by Favi, the Hopi Hari deposits the amount of the debt in court.
In court, however, the first and second instances disregard the deposits and give the victory to Favi, ordering the consolidation of the property, and putting the land at risk of auction.
Hopi Hari appeals to the STJ, arguing the legality of the discharge and the right to continue with the land after the judicial deposit of more than R$ 1.1 million.
Assignment of surprise credit and Hopi Hari action
What’s happening in the courts, in a lawsuit of more than 2,200 pages, draws attention. The park became the owner of the land in question in 2012 and offered the property as collateral, with a fiduciary sale, for a R$5 million loan with Banco Safra. The debt had been paid regularly, until on July 12, 2017, it settled the amount registered with the bank, which then granted a letter of discharge to the Hopi Hari on July 12 of that year.
When attempting to write off the encumbrance (registration made on any asset that is linked to a contract, and in this case, to a loan) at the notary’s office, the park’s management discovered that there was still a credit assignment guaranteed by a fiduciary sale given to Favi Empreendimentos Ltda., dated March 7, 2017, in the amount of R$ 460 thousand (close to 9% of the debt).
On July 31, 19 days after receiving Safra’s discharge letter, the park received a notification from Favi, charging the amount of R$ 848.8 thousand and giving 15 days for payment or the immediate consolidation of the property would be made in the name of the creditor. At that time, the park filed a lawsuit against Banco Safra and Favi asking, initially, for a declaration of discharge of the loan agreement and, secondly, for the possibility of paying any residual value. The court granted an injunction suspending the consolidation of the property in the name of Favi, in addition to the possibility of purging the arrears with a deposit in the process of R$ 460 thousand – then waiting for the judicial expertise to determine any residue still due. In other words, everything stopped to be resolved in the courts.
The
bank stated that it made a mistake and, at the notary’s office, annulled the discharge given to Hopi Hari, then prenoting the unexpected assignment of credit to Favi, a company owned by partners Arsenio Eduardo Correa and José Patti, with capital of R$ 14.8 thousand and CNPJ suspended since 2007. It has no employees and the address registered with the São Paulo Board of Trade, at Rua Boa Vista, nº 254, 10º andar, Centro, is actually that of Correa’s law firm – which moved two months ago, according to the management of the Clemente de Faria building.
“It was an investment that my partner made… Actually, we did. We went to the judiciary to see what would be done. Looks like there’s a pending appeal… But I’m not the lawyer of the case, I don’t follow it, only my partner. It’s the only management information I have,” Correa, who is also a lawyer, told the reporter.
Asked if iG could talk to Patti, he replied: “No, no, you can’t talk to him. He’s retired, 95 years old, you know? He’s in good health, but he doesn’t talk to anyone else.”
“
Yes, there was a blatant mistake on the part of the bank,” explains Ana Paula Batista Poli, a lawyer for Safra. “The registration of the property was attributed to the Hopi Hari, but this was canceled and now the registration is external to the reality of the facts. Safra could no longer grant the discharge, because the credit at that time already belonged to Favi. In our understanding, there was no prejudice to any of the parties,” says the lawyer.
The lawyer who acts for the bank points out that there is no longer any discussion about who is the creditor and who is the debtor: it is Favi and the park, respectively, and the discussion revolves only around the amount to be paid. Portal iG tried to contact the legal department of Safra that would have originated the assignment to Favi, to also comment on the error, but did not receive a response until the publication of this article.
Attorney’s fees questioned
Among the items in Favi’s cost spreadsheet are legal fees of R$ 195.6 thousand – which, it is worth remembering, are not related to the current process. “They put 30% of fees on top of the amount that would be pertinent. This is illegal, it is not in the contract between Favi and Safra and they could not be charged for something that we did not sign,” says lawyer Reinaldo Ferreira, who participates in one of the law firms that defends the Park.
Still in judicial reorganization, the Hopi Hari decided to challenge this extra amount in court. in addition to what would be the assignment of rights, of R$ 460 thousand. “This amount was deposited in court, at the same time that we filed a lawsuit, which followed to an accounting expertise. It was determined, by the judicial expert, appointed by the Judge, a residual value of R$ 688 thousand which, as a precaution, we also deposited, so that there would be no doubts about the discharge of the debt”.
Do you want the money or not?
The Hopi Hari lost the case and received the decision in the first instance with surprise. Judge Fabiana Marini of the São Paulo Court of Justice (TJSP), who signed the sentence, disregarded the amounts paid in court and also the expert’s conclusion that there was no basis for Favi to charge legal fees and inflate the amount of the debt.
It further claimed that the land was not essential for the park’s activities, moving forward with the consolidation of property rights for Favi – that is, the company would gain the right to the land and do with it as it pleased. In addition, it ignored the fact that the land in question is very essential for the Hopi Hari, in judicial reorganization, to continue its activities and honor its debts.
As presented in the lawsuit, in the area are industrial sheds with parts of toys from the park, equipment maintenance, electrical substation and power cabin, huge transmission lines, recycling sorting area, chemical depot, LPG plant, among others.
ended by alleging bad faith on the part of the park for “maintaining that the property offered by it has a high value in relation to the debt charged.” The calculation seems simple, contradicting the judgment: the debt charged via assignment is about R$ 400 thousand and the land of the park, in the sale, would have, at least, the value of R$ 5 million. Independent reviewers The park appealed the decision and relied on two opinions to instruct the appeal: that of Dr.
Melhim Namem Chalhub, author of the draft of the fiduciary guarantees law No. 9,514/97, and that of the professor of Civil Law João Biazi, PhD in Civil Law from the University of São Paulo. Portal iG spoke with the reviewers of the case, who confirmed their arguments in the process. Chalub says in his opinion that “the fiduciary debtor is guaranteed the right to pay the installments due up to the date of registration of the consolidation of ownership (…) and after the consolidation of the property and until the date of the second auction, the debtor is assured of reacquiring ownership of the property for the value of the remainder of the debt.” That is, the park, according to the law, has the right to pay the debt, even if the creditor no longer wants to receive it. Also, if Favi does not accept the payment already made in court and asks for the consolidation of the property to perhaps auction it, it will end up with a result very similar to what already exists, since any profit above the value of the debt measured by the Justice expert would be reverted to the Hopi Hari.
Of course, the park doesn’t want to sell the land, He wants possession and to continue his business, since he has paid the debt in full. The reviewer adds to this and writes “(there is a) singularity that covers the case: particularly due to the excess of collection proven by the report of the revisional action (and by) unjustified refusal of receipt by the fiduciary assignee Favi (…) of the amount sufficient to satisfy the total credit and charges, determined by the Court’s expert”. Accountability is of mutual benefit to the parties and the expropriation of the property would be a solution in exceptional cases.
João
Biazi, on the other hand, analyzes whether the judicial deposits made by the Hopi Hari would have been able to purge the arrears (pay off the debt). He states in the document that “yes, they offer full payment of the debt (…) Favi’s additional request for attorneys’ fees is not justified (…) The parties have never agreed to any remuneration of contractual attorneys’ fees and there is no record – not even inference – about the amount of 30% of the total amount of the debt. The amount effectively due at the time was demonstrated in an expert effort confirmed by the trial court in a sentence.”
Would it be possible for Favi, then, to request in a notary’s office the consolidation of the immovable property given as a fiduciary guarantee, as it did? According to Biazi, “no. The notification made on August 15, 2017 did not comply with the normative precepts required by article 26, paragraph 1 of the Law on Fiduciary Sale of Real Estate, since there was an excessive amount charged and in no way related to the content of the guaranteed agreement. In this sense, the nullity of said summons must be recognized.”
In
the second instance, however, Judge Décio Rodrigues, rapporteur of the appeal, ignoring the strong arguments of the appeal and the opinions of experts, also did not advance in the essential issues of the case, such as ensuring the fiduciary debtor the possibility of payment of the installments due until the date of registration of the consolidation of the property in the creditor’s assets.
“We filed a special appeal on the collegiate decision, suspending again the procedure for consolidating the property, that is, preventing Favi from taking the area for itself and suddenly putting it up for auction,” says Ferreira. The appeal was accepted now, on June 21, by the president of the Private Law Section, Heraldo de Oliveira Silva, referring the case to the Superior Court of Justice, which will evaluate the request for nullity and possible violation of law.
Amount above the order
The lawyer points out that “money was deposited in the process, which reaches more than R$ 1.1 million, an amount above what was initially requested by Favi, of R$ 884.8 thousand”. The value, he believes, has to be accepted. “The principle of the law is not for the creditor to take for himself the alienated property, but to satisfy the amount borrowed. The law makes it possible to pay and settle the debt,” he says. The park’s lawyers find the intentions of the other party strange, obscure, but believe that the STJ will better evaluate the situation.
Partners
: So Favi wants the land to put it up for auction? According to one of the company’s owners, “it depends.” “This action was not my decision, it was my partner’s. I don’t even know who is running this process to confirm the lawyer’s name. Look, that’s all there is to it, okay? Thank you, good morning,” Correa said at the end of the contact with the reporter. He signs the assignment of credit with Safra and the notification to Hopi Hari.
When contacted, Favi Empreendimentos’ lawyers did not return the contacts of Portal iG. In the STJ, Hopi Hari will be defended by the law firm Barci de Moraes, in partnership with the law firm Cotrim Advogados Associados.
