Búzios Billionaire’s Bizarre Demand: Judge Orders Demolition of Neighbor’s Home for ‘Privacy’ Reasons

The judge, owner of a mansion in Búzios, asked the court to demolish the house next door to get more “privacy”. Thanks to a judge transferred with his consent, he was able

Arthur Guimarães, Piauí

Carlos Spingola Junior, a 47-year-old rheumatologist, planned a peaceful life with his family. After years of saving his savings, he took bank money and started building a house in Búzios, a city famous for its beaches and crowds of Argentinian tourists. I planned to move there and enjoy a quiet routine, free from the stress of a metropolis like Rio de Janeiro. His girlfriend and his parents would be his company. “I always wanted to live in a big house, with a dog, in a quiet city,” she said.

Junior got land in the neighborhood of Geribá, a few meters from the main cove of Búzios. The work started in 2019 and developed even during the pandemic. In a few months, the bricklayers built the living room, a swimming pool and two rooms on the ground floor. They were building the walls on the second floor when, in October 2020, they were forced to stop due to a court injunction. The 1st Civil Court of Búzios, contacted by a neighbor, found that the work was not licensed by the municipality and, therefore, irregular.

The licensing had actually ended. But the problem was quickly resolved: at the end of that month, Junior renewed his license with the city hall and informed the court. I thought that would be the end of the process, but it wasn’t. In December, the complaint changed its tone: the problem was now not only documents, but also privacy. The resident of the house next door – a mansion with a helipad and sea views – complained that the new arrival would interfere with his privacy. This is because Junior’s house would have two floors. From up there, according to the neighbour, he would have a privileged view of all his land.

Junior asked for a deal. He suggested changing the floor plan of the house so that there are small windows on the first floor instead of balconies. It wasn’t enough. He then proposed installing a wooden panel with a hedge to block the view. The neighbor did not accept it. As a last resort, Junior suggested, in a virtual hearing, building a concrete wall closing off the back of his property, making it impossible to see his neighbour. Nothing done.

Simulate the hedge presented by Carlos Junior’s defense

The process dragged on for almost four years. The work, meanwhile, was stopped by court order. Junior practically camped out in the incomplete house, sleeping on the sofa, waiting for a decision. In August 2024, it came: the judge Nando Machado Monteiro dos Santos ordered that the second floor of the property be demolished. A victory for the neighbor, who is not just a citizen. His name is Luiz Zveiter, he is 69 years old, he is an influential judge and former president of the Court of Justice of Rio de Janeiro.

Luiz Zveiter

Zveiter is the dean of the Special Body, a collegial body responsible for a series of administrative matters, such as approving the annual budget proposal of the Court of Justice and preparing competitions for hiring magistrates. It is also up to the Special Body to decide the court where each judge in the state will be allocated. So, in July this year, the body decided to send Nando dos Santos to the Búzios area. Two months after his arrival, the house imbroglio, which had already passed through the hands of seven judges, was quickly resolved in Zveiter’s favor. Four days after the sentence was announced, Santos was transferred again. He exchanged Búzios for Belford Roxo, in Baixada Fluminense.

The lawyer Fernando Christian Brandão Silveira, who represented Zveiter in the Búzios case, argued that his client, like a judge, needed complete security in his summer home. He said he was a magistrate “active in this court, with several sentences and judgments of great repercussions within the state and the country.” He continued his reasoning: “your and your family’s safety is everyone’s obligation, so the author continues to judge cases impartially and without fear.”
➥ Pragmatism news is first published on WhatsApp. Click here to join our group!

Santos, the newly arrived judge, accepted the thesis. He invoked the alleged right to privacy, taking as a compass a quote from the Civil Code which says: “The owner or occupier of a building has the right to cease interference which is detrimental to the safety, peace and health of those who lives in it. , caused to the use of neighboring properties.” He also referred to the lawyer Silvio de Salvo Venosa, a scholar on the subject, as a reference.

A Piauí He showed Venosa the judge’s sentence and justification. “Nothing to do”, said the jury, who is a retired judge from the Court of Justice of São Paulo. “The discretionary power of the judge, in each case, is to check whether or not the adjacent work is infringed,” Venosa said. But its demolition, according to him, is an extreme measure, recommended only when there is no other possible solution. “The judge seems to have exaggerated his decision.”

Fernando Neisser, a professor at the Getúlio Vargas Foundation Law School in São Paulo (FGV-SP), agrees. From his point of view, the right to privacy should only be applied in extreme cases, when there is a clear risk to someone’s privacy. “If they build a building next to my house, and I, who like to be at home in the pool, lose that freedom, it’s a problem in life. I have no right to tear down the building as it has interfered with my privacy.” Venosa makes a similar reading: “If a person wants the right to be alone and not be seen by the neighborhood, then he must use the necessary means to not be seen.”

The Brazilian Civil Code prohibits the opening of windows, terraces or balconies less than 1.5 meters from a neighbour’s land. This was not the case in Búzios, according to an expert report carried out at the request of the Court. Even if there was, there was an alternative to demolition: the judge could order the opinion to be included. Junior proposed this, even drawing up simulations of what the hedge would look like – built of wood and covered with plants. In these projections, Zveiter’s house is not visible. However, the judge ignored the project.

Taking Zveiter’s lawyer’s argument as a basis, the Piauí he asked the Court of Justice of Rio if there is “any law, norm or rule that protects the security and privacy of the magistrate of Rio de Janeiro and that prevents a neighbor from having a look at his residence”. The councillor’s response, sent in a note, was succinct: “No.”

The transfer of judges from one court to another is, in legal jargon, called “removal”. The move of Nando Santos to the 1st Civil Court of Búzios was announced on July 1st, in a public session of the Special Body. The 32-year-old judge, who was previously based in Angra dos Reis, applied for the job using the seniority criterion – which has nothing to do with age or years of work, but with the time the judge has been on the same level. . Zveiter, who is the dean, was the first to vote. Approve the colleague’s request. The other 23 judges present remained silent, in agreement, and the name was approved unanimously. Santos was the only candidate.

Just over a month later, the judges analyzed a new bid to get rid of Santos, this time for Belford Roxo. As a rule, a judge must complete at least one year of work in the area before requesting another transfer. But, thanks to a legal loophole (the result of a mismatch between the new career rules and the court’s internal rules), Santos was able to apply. On August 19, his request was analyzed by the Special Body and approved. Once again, the session began with Zveiter, who once again voted in favor of the judge. The criterion this time was not seniority, but “merit” – a vast concept, which is usually evaluated in the light of the productivity of the judges, possible punishments and their “willingness to fulfill their duties”. Santos, again, was the only postulant. Again, it was quietly approved by the other judges. (According to the court office, the fact that the vacancy was “dormant due to the absence of interested parties in other prior removal proceedings” contributed to the approval.)

Santos announced the sentence in favor of Zveiter on August 30, Friday, at 9:29 pm. These were his last hours as head of the 1st Civil Court of Búzios. The order which made his transfer to the Belford Roxo officer was published the following Tuesday, September 3rd. Since then the judge has been accommodated in the 2nd Criminal Court – a sector with a number of cases almost 70% lower than Búzios and much closer to the capital.

The Judiciary is inevitably permeated by conflicts of interest. After all, judges are as much a part of society as other people. It is common for people to encounter processes that conflict with their personal lives – either because they involve family and friends or because their outcome could benefit or harm their personal interests. That is why the concept of suspicion exists: after realizing that he is an interested party in a case he is judging, the judge can declare that he is suspicious and withdraw from the case. If you don’t do it yourself, the other participants in the process may demand that you be moved.

However, the decision relating to the transfer of judges does not provide for a measure of this nature. It does not mention any ethical behavior that judges with voting power must follow. Zveiter, whose personal life was affected by the decisions he helped make in the Special Body, did not show discomfort in either of the two votes. Wanted by Piauíhe did not comment until this report was published.

A Piauí He asked Santos why he wanted to be transferred to the beach city. And why, after just two months, did he ask to move to Belford Roxo. The judge preferred not to respond, and asked that the questions be sent to the court’s press office. The adviser, in turn, said that the magistrate was prohibited from “expressing, by any means of communication, an opinion on pending trial cases, whether his own or by others, or a derogatory judgment on orders, votes or sentences, from judicial. bodies”.

Wanted by PiauíThe City of Búzios said that the house of the doctor Carlos Junior “is properly licensed, complying with all the requirements of the municipal departments involved in the process. Throughout the construction period, since 2018, there were no irregularities that led to a suspension or obstacle to the continuation of the work based on current municipal laws. Only minor modifications were requested during the process, which the owner, after receiving appropriate notice, complied with and resolved in accordance with municipal regulations.”

Junior, despite this, is getting used to a half-built house. He received a reprimand in court in February, when bricklayers were photographed with their hands dirty on the second floor of his property. There was an embargo on the work, and so the judge threatened him with a fine of 100 thousand reais for failing to comply with a court order. Junior says the workers were only building a roof to protect the house from the elements. “Water got into everything when it rained. The wood, which was expensive, began to deteriorate.” Judge Nando Santos’ sentence gave Junior thirty days to demolish the second floor of his house. He is still evaluating whether he will appeal in the second place.

→ IF YOU’VE GOT THIS FAR… Know that Pragmatismo has no investors and is not among the vehicles that receive state advertising from the government. Journalism is expensive. With only R $ 1 REAL you help us pay our professionals and the structure. Your support is very important and strengthens independent media. Contribute via key pix: [email protected]