Controversial Aspects of the Extrajudicial Exercise of Claims Involving Time-Barred Debts

Abstract

This article examines the criteria used to distinguish the extrajudicial exercise of a claim from the mere survival of a time-barred debt as a natural obligation. The study follows a deductive method and combines bibliographic, statutory, and case-law research, focusing on Articles 189 and 882 of the Brazilian Civil Code, Special Appeal 2,088,100/SP, and subsequent decisions of the Superior Court of Justice. It discusses the relevance of the debtor's initiative, external requests for payment, disclosure of the debt, the organization of negotiation environments, and the absence of overt coercion. The article concludes that limitation bars both judicial and extrajudicial collection, but does not extinguish the credit or automatically render every private reference to the obligation unlawful. Classification depends on the act's concrete function: active communication, pressure, or inducement to pay tend to constitute collection, whereas the mere listing of a debt on a private platform, with no impact on the credit score and accessible by login, has been treated as a distinct situation by the Superior Court of Justice. The matter remains pending under Repetitive Theme 1,264.