Judge Ricardo Augusto Ramos rejected a lawsuit worth more than R$5 million filed by the father-in-law of the minister of the (Supreme Federal Court) against him and his wife, Valeska Zanin Martins.
Valeska’s father, lawyer Roberto Teixeira went to court against the couple to try to reverse a legal agreement to transfer properties and distribute profits from the former law firm formed by the three. Teixeira said that such acts were simulations to anticipate his inheritance.
The first instance decision dates back to September, but the lawyer has already appealed. The case is now being processed in the second instance, at the São Paulo Court of Justice. The information was published on the website and confirmed by Sheet. The report tried to contact Teixeira’s defenses and representatives, but received no response.
Zanin, Valeska and Teixeira were partners at Teixeira, Martins Advogados — the office responsible for the president’s technical defense () in the Operation Lava Jato processes. The couple left the law firm unilaterally in 2022 and founded a new company.
Teixeira is Lula’s friend and introduced Zanin to the current president. The lawyer states that “Valeska and Cristiano took advantage of the media projection to withdraw and exclusively enjoy their prestige” and that their ability to work was compromised, “without main clients, deprived of millionaire fees and with liabilities”.
According to the lawyer, one of the problems is that he had carried out a process to divide his assets after his death. Among these businesses would be the transfer of properties and the unequal distribution of office profits to his daughters, Valeska and Larissa Quattrini.
He says that all partners were in agreement with the measure. So, as the intention behind would be the sharing of assets, and the Zanin couple broke with it, the correct thing would be to recognize the distribution of profits and transfer as null, in order to restore the previous situation.
This point is corroborated by her daughter Larissa, who, although she is also one of those being sued, does not oppose the demand. She says that her father was, in fact, ignored in the distribution of profits, that the objective was sharing and that the agreement was that the properties would continue to be used by him.
Valeska denies that there was a simulation of sharing and says that the distribution was legitimate. The disproportionate division was even a common practice at the office, she states, giving the example of Zanin, who would also have received a smaller amount.
The lawyer states that, if the father had intended to benefit from the right to use the properties later, he should have documented it, which he did not do. There was never a simulated act, she says, classifying the argument as cunning.
The STF minister stated that he was never or is Teixeira’s heir, being married under the regime of total separation of assets, that is, he has nothing to inherit from the lawyer. He also refuted the simulation argument and said that the assets belonged to the bank, not his father-in-law. Zanin left law in 2023, the year he was appointed to the Supreme Court by Lula.
Judge Ricardo Augusto Ramos, from the 7th Civil Court of São Paulo, considered that, in this case, the agreement for the distribution of profits was closed in December 2013 and the deeds for the transferred properties were drawn up in February 2014. The action was proposed in July 2024.
For the judge, there was a prescription: “If there is no interruptive or suspensive cause (for example, notification or interpellation), it appears that the ten-year period of article 205 of the Civil Code has already expired. Likewise, the three-year period, if applicable.”
Ramos judged, on the other hand, that, even if the issue of prescription (missing the deadline to enforce a right) was overcome, the agreement between the firm’s partners should be maintained, because there would be no way to recognize any defect.
“It was celebrated between older and capable people, with not even a hint that they were unaware of their mental faculties at the time of the legal transaction being questioned, and it is worth asserting that they are lawyers and have the broadest legal knowledge.”
