Under Brazilian law, the former partner in a stable union has the same rights as the former spouse in a marriage with regard to alimony payments. What about when there are two parallel stable unions and the consequent apportionment of the pension on the death of one of the partners?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
READ MORE: According to the Federal Supreme Court (STF), the parallel existence of two stable unions, or of a marriage and a stable union, is illegitimate, including for the apportionment of a death pension, a benefit paid by the INSS (National Social Security Institute). The decision came at the end of last year, in a virtual plenary session, due to the coronavirus pandemic, when the Plenary dismissed an appeal involving the division of the death pension of a man who had a judicially recognized stable union with a woman, with whom he had a child, and at the same time maintained a homosexual relationship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With the STF's decision, lovers, regardless of whether they are straight or homosexual, are not entitled to part of the death pension in the case of two simultaneous stable unions proven in court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The case started in 2019 in Sergipe, but at the time it was postponed due to a request for a review, so that there would be more time to analyze the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The plaintiff allegedly had a same-sex relationship between 1990 and 2002 with another man, who in turn had a stable union with a woman. When the man died in 2002, his widow went to court and obtained judicial recognition of the stable relationship. Subsequently, the deceased man's partner also went to court to have the stable union recognized.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Sergipe Court of Justice (TJ-SE), while recognizing the existence of the same-sex union, denied the right to half of the death pension considering the legal impossibility of a double stable union.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The TJ-SE justified that it was not possible to recognize the same-sex relationship, \u201ceven under the guise of a de facto partnership, as claimed, because the Brazilian legal system, whose system is governed by the principle of monogamy, does not allow the simultaneous existence of more than one family entity, in accordance with art. 226, \u00a7 3 of the Federal Constitution and art. 1723 of the Civil Code. (fl. 136)\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the trial, which ended in a virtual session on December 18, 2020, the current defended by the rapporteur, Justice Alexandre de Moraes, prevailed, justifying that the recognition of the apportionment of the pension would end up characterizing the existence of bigamy, a situation prohibited by Brazilian law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite the longevity of extramarital relationships, the Court considered that the Brazilian legal system prohibits the state from recognizing a stable union concurrently with a marriage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In his vote, the rapporteur stated that the existence of a judicial declaration of a stable union prevents the state from recognizing another union established in parallel by one of the partners during the same period, regardless of sexual orientation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Discover the differences between divorce and abandonment<\/a>
5 things you need to know about alimony<\/a>
What you should know about commercial contracts<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nRECOGNITION OF STABLE UNION<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME FEDERAL COURT<\/h2>\n\n\n\n