Find a debt-help route outside the United States

SettleADebt C_BR PASS-05 — Brazil

Distinct component: Prescription, accrual, suspension and interruption for an ordinary unsecured civil consumer-contract money claim.

Baseline: October 22, 2026, America/Los_Angeles. Fresh source access: October 26, 2026 PDT / October 27, 2026 UTC. Individual source-search and opening clock times were not logged and remain unknown. Status: Narrow research report and publication hold. It is not an individualized limitation opinion, provider clearance, contract acceptance, or country acceptance.

This pass independently reads the necessary current Civil Code, Consumer Defense Code, Civil Procedure Code, protest legislation and official STJ materials. It adopts none of the unreviewed PASS-04 conclusions as a premise. PASS-02/PASS-03 correspondent and workflow-provenance matters remain separate.

Executive determination

For the stipulated ordinary branch, the decisive classification is not “consumer debt” or “bank debt.” It is the nature and documentation of the particular claim.

1. A claim to collect a liquid debt stated in a public or private instrument ordinarily points to the five-year period in Civil Code art. 206 §5(I). An official January 2026 STJ digest applies that provision to a liquid debt in a private contract, while making clear that certainty, liquidity and enforceability depended on the contract’s conditions having occurred. Planalto+1
2. Civil Code art. 205’s ten-year period is a fallback only when the law has not fixed a shorter period. An official STJ case summary illustrates use of ten years where the contractual claim was illiquid and did not fit a more specific category. That does not mean every disputed contract receives ten years. Planalto+1
3. The clock ordinarily cannot run before the obligation is due. A fixed-term positive and liquid obligation places the debtor in mora upon nonpayment at maturity; an obligation without a fixed term may require judicial or extrajudicial demand to constitute mora. Accrual still depends on when the creditor’s enforceable pretensão actually arose under the contract and applicable law. Planalto+3
4. Prescription can be interrupted only once. A qualifying citation order, judicial protest, specified protest route, or unequivocal act by the debtor acknowledging the creditor’s right may interrupt it. A creditor’s own letter or phone call is not, without more, a debtor acknowledgment. Planalto+2
5. Filing a suit does not by itself answer every timing question. The citation order’s interruption can relate back to filing only under the procedural conditions in CPC art. 240, including the claimant’s timely diligence. Court-caused delay alone does not prejudice the claimant. Planalto
6. Prescription extinguishes the judicially enforceable pretensão described in Civil Code art. 189; it does not necessarily erase the underlying obligation as though it had never existed. Civil Code art. 882 says a voluntary payment made to satisfy a prescribed debt cannot be reclaimed solely on that ground. Planalto+1
7. The federal credit-reporting clock is different. CDC art. 43 has its own five-year negative-information boundary and a rule tied to prescription of the collection claim. It does not make every consumer debt substantively prescribed after five years. Planalto
8. The nationwide rule for extrajudicial pursuit of a prescribed debt remains unsettled at the STJ repetitive-precedent level. The current official page for Tema 1264 still says Em Julgamento, with no judgment, published opinion or finality recorded and a last update of September 21, 2026. A 2024 Third Panel decision reported by the STJ took a restrictive position on extrajudicial collection but distinguished passive inclusion in a negotiation platform. That panel report is not a completed Tema 1264 thesis. Processo STJ+1

No actual deadline can be calculated without the operative contract, obligation type, maturity history, acceleration terms, payment or acknowledgment records, protest history, litigation chronology and any applicable suspension facts.

G1. Exact category, accrual and period

G1.1 Period-selection matrix

Narrow classification rule

For the stipulated claim, the five-year provision requires more than the words “written contract.” The evidence should identify:

• the exact instrument;
• the debtor and creditor;
• the obligation created;
• the ascertainable amount or contractual calculation mechanism;
• the maturity date or condition;
• any later agreement changing those terms; and
• whether special product or negotiable-instrument law displaces the Civil Code rule.

An instrument may be sufficient to evidence a liquid debt under Civil Code art. 206 §5(I) without necessarily satisfying every formality for direct execution under CPC arts. 783–784. Direct execution requires a certain, liquid and enforceable obligation and a qualifying executive-title category; a private document signed only by the debtor, for example, is not automatically the CPC art. 784(III) two-witness title. That procedural distinction does not by itself convert a five-year liquid claim into a ten-year illiquid claim. Planalto

G1.2 Accrual and maturity

Civil Code art. 189 provides the general accrual concept: upon violation of the right, a pretensão arises, and prescription extinguishes that claim after the applicable period. Civil Code art. 199(II) says prescription does not run while the obligation is not yet due. Planalto+1

The relevant branches are:

The STJ’s public materials illustrate, but do not universally settle, instalment treatment. A 2021 official summary concerning payroll-deducted lending treated overdue instalments as individually subject to the five-year period. A 2020 summary in the different condominium context also linked exigibility to each instalment’s maturity. Those product-specific decisions do not establish one acceleration rule for every ordinary consumer contract. STJ+1

G1.3 Principal, interest and accessories

A single account may contain components governed by different classifications:

• principal contained in a liquid written instrument may invoke art. 206 §5(I);
• separately payable periodic interest or another accessory within art. 206 §3(III) may invoke three years;
• a capitalized, incorporated or judicially liquidated amount may require a different analysis; and
• collection costs, penalties and professional fees cannot be assigned a period merely because they appear on the same statement.

No claim is made here that every interest component expires before the principal. The actual contractual structure, calculation method and relief requested control.

G1.4 Prescription versus decadence

For this stipulated ordinary money-collection branch, the relevant issue is generally prescrição of the collection pretensão, not decadência of a power to alter a legal relationship. Civil Code arts. 207–211 expressly treat decadence differently, including the general nonapplication of prescription’s impediment, suspension and interruption rules unless the law provides otherwise. Planalto

The CDC’s thirty- or ninety-day defect-complaint periods and its five-year damages provision should therefore not be pasted onto a creditor’s ordinary contract collection claim.

G1.5 Substantive claim versus reporting clock

CDC art. 43 §1 prohibits consumer database retention of negative information for more than five years. Section 5 prevents credit-protection systems from supplying information that impedes new credit once the action to collect the consumer debt is prescribed. Those provisions regulate reporting consequences; they do not select the original substantive prescription period for every underlying debt or establish that the obligation has been erased. Planalto

G2. Interruption, suspension, acknowledgment and litigation

G2.1 Impediment and suspension

The Civil Code identifies specific situations in which prescription does not begin or does not continue. Consumer status, hardship, negotiation activity or a collector’s delay is not itself a general suspension event.

Mechanical distinction: an impediment prevents the clock from starting; a suspension preserves the time already elapsed and the remainder continues when the cause ends; an interruption resets the applicable period from the interruptive act or the last relevant procedural act. The reset rule is express in CC art. 202 sole paragraph. The preservation/resumption description is a structural reading of the Code’s separate suspension and interruption sections, not an authorization to invent an unrecorded suspension period. Planalto

G2.2 One-time interruption

Civil Code art. 202 says prescription may be interrupted only once. The STJ’s official 2022 summary states that a creditor cannot obtain one interruption for an extrajudicial event and another for judicial citation in the same prescription sequence merely because the causes differ. Planalto+1

The relevant statutory routes are:

Filing, citation and diligence

CPC art. 240 provides:

• valid citation produces procedural effects;
• interruption caused by the citation order relates back to the filing date;
• the claimant must adopt the necessary measures within ten days to make citation possible;
• delay attributable exclusively to the judicial service does not prejudice the party; and
• the retroactivity rule also applies to decadence and other statutory extinguishing periods.

The ten-day diligence requirement is a procedural deadline. CPC art. 219 says days in procedural deadlines are counted in business days; CPC art. 224 excludes the opening day and includes the ending day, subject to its procedural endpoint rules. No calendar date for those ten days can be produced without the filing date, notice date, court calendar, local holidays and the exact act the court required. Planalto+2

The same basic retroactivity appears in execution under CPC art. 802, subject to art. 240 §2. An execution filed before the applicable condition or term, or without a certain, liquid and enforceable title, is vulnerable under CPC art. 803. Planalto

Protest and pre-protest negotiation

Lei 9.492/1997 defines protest as the formal and solemn act proving default or nonperformance arising from titles and other debt documents. Its art. 9 directs the notary to inspect formal characteristics and expressly says the notary does not investigate prescription or caducity. A completed protest is therefore not an adjudication that the claim was timely. Planalto+1

Since Lei 14.711/2023, Lei 9.492 art. 11-A permits a pre-protest settlement proposal. Section 1 gives the proposal’s presentation date interruptive effect only when:

1. the creditor actually uses that statutory route;
2. prior negotiation fails; and
3. the presentation is converted into a protest.

A unilateral ordinary settlement invitation outside that statutory process does not acquire the same rule merely because it mentions a future protest. Planalto+1

G2.3 Acknowledgment, partial payment and new agreements

Unequivocal acknowledgment

CC art. 202(VI) focuses on an act by the debtor that unequivocally recognizes the creditor’s right. Relevant evidence might include a signed admission, a payment accompanied by an undisputed balance acknowledgment or a new schedule that clearly confirms the debt.

It does not follow that:

• answering a collection call;
• requesting documents;
• saying “I cannot pay”;
• discussing a hypothetical discount;
• offering a nuisance payment while expressly disputing liability; or
• receiving the creditor’s letter

automatically interrupts prescription. Those facts must be interpreted in their full context.

Partial payment

A partial payment can be evidence of acknowledgment, but no categorical rule is adopted that every payment restarts every clock. Necessary facts include:

• who made it;
• which debt it was allocated to;
• whether the balance was admitted or disputed;
• whether payment occurred before prescription completed;
• whether another interruption had already occurred; and
• whether the payment was part of a new agreement.

If prescription had already completed, the legal issue is no longer a pre-expiration interruption. It may concern waiver, voluntary payment or a new obligation.

Novation and confirmation

Civil Code arts. 360–364 govern novation. Article 361 states that without unequivocal animus novandi, a second obligation merely confirms the first rather than replacing it. The document must establish whether it:

• replaces the original debt;
• changes only payment mechanics;
• acknowledges the existing balance;
• settles disputed rights; or
• creates a distinct new obligation. Planalto+1

After prescription completes, CC art. 191 allows express or tacit waiver only if no third party is prejudiced; tacit waiver rests on conduct incompatible with invoking prescription. A later payment plan therefore cannot be labeled automatically as “revival for five more years” without examining waiver, novation, validity, amount, consideration, creditor authority and the new maturity terms. Planalto

G2.4 Effects among multiple parties

Civil Code arts. 203–204 regulate who may interrupt and which parties are affected. Among other distinctions, interruption against the principal debtor can affect the guarantor, while effects among solidary debtors and heirs depend on solidarity, indivisibility and the specific actor. This pass does not decide guaranty or joint-liability merits; it preserves only the warning that an event involving one person cannot automatically be assigned to every obligor. Planalto

G2.5 Intercurrent prescription

Current Civil Code art. 206-A says prescrição intercorrente uses the same period as the underlying pretensão, subject to the Civil Code’s impediment, suspension and interruption provisions and CPC art. 921. The present wording was enacted through Lei 14.382/2022 after the earlier Lei 14.195/2021 insertion was revoked and replaced. Planalto+2

Under current CPC art. 921:

• execution is suspended when neither the debtor nor attachable assets are found;
• the court suspends the execution for one year, during which prescription is suspended;
• after that year the proceeding is archived if the problem remains;
• the in-proceeding clock begins upon knowledge of the first unsuccessful attempt to locate the debtor or assets, with the one-time statutory suspension;
• effective citation, debtor notice or attachment can interrupt, provided the creditor observes procedural or court-set deadlines;
• the court may recognize intercurrent prescription after hearing the parties for fifteen days; and
• the rule also applies to judgment enforcement.

CPC arts. 924(V) and 925 separately connect intercurrent prescription to termination of execution and require judicial declaration by sentence. Planalto+2

This is not an invitation to calculate intercurrent prescription from an account statement. It requires the actual proceeding, docket chronology, failed-search event, party knowledge, suspension order, asset discoveries, effective procedural acts and diligence. No actual docket was searched.

G3. Consequences, procedure and adverse branches

G3.1 Judicial recognition

Civil Code art. 193 permits the beneficiary to raise prescription at any level of jurisdiction. CPC art. 487(II) treats a decision on prescription or decadence as a merits determination. Except for the liminal-impropriety situation in CPC art. 332 §1, the court must give the parties an opportunity to address prescription before recognizing it. CPC arts. 9–10 reinforce the general prohibition against an adverse surprise decision, including on a matter the court may examine on its own initiative. Planalto+3

Accordingly:

• a spreadsheet date does not itself establish a judicial defense;
• a court may need evidence about maturity, liquidity, acknowledgment, protest, citation and suspension;
• a limitation issue can be contested rather than mechanically self-executing;
• procedural waiver, res judicata and the posture of a later judgment remain separate questions; and
• no provider should promise a guaranteed prescription ruling.

G3.2 Effect on the claim and underlying obligation

The Civil Code uses the language that prescription extinguishes the pretensão arising from violation of a right. Article 882 then provides that a person cannot reclaim what was voluntarily paid to satisfy a prescribed debt or another judicially unenforceable obligation. Read together, these provisions do not support advertising that prescription automatically “cancels,” “forgives” or reduces the accounting balance to zero for every purpose. Planalto+1

The consequences can therefore differ:

G3.3 Extrajudicial collection: present uncertainty

The official STJ Tema 1264 page frames the question as whether a prescribed debt may be demanded extrajudicially, including placement of the debtor’s name on agreement or renegotiation platforms. It remained Em Julgamento on the official page last updated September 21, 2026; the listed cases had no judgment date, published opinion or finality. The page also records broad suspension of proceedings involving the issue. Processo STJ+1

An August 2024 STJ news report concerning a Third Panel decision says that prescription prevented judicial and extrajudicial collection in that case, while the particular platform entry was considered a voluntary-negotiation mechanism rather than collection. This supplies important official interpretive evidence, but it must not be represented as the final Tema 1264 rule. STJ

The safe publication position is therefore:

A supported prescription conclusion may bar the judicial collection pretensão. The precise federal boundary between prohibited extrajudicial collection, a passive voluntary-negotiation offer, account history and related consumer practices remains under active STJ repetitive review. Collection conduct, harassment, reporting and LGPD issues require separate analysis.

G3.4 Setoff

Civil Code art. 190 says an exceção prescribes in the same period as the pretensão. Civil Code arts. 368–369 require reciprocal obligations that are liquid, due and fungible for ordinary legal setoff. These provisions do not establish a universal right to use a prescribed consumer debt affirmatively as a setoff after its collection claim has expired. Planalto+1

A real setoff question would require:

• reciprocal creditor/debtor identities;
• both obligations;
• maturity and liquidity;
• the date and method of asserting setoff;
• whether the setoff conditions existed before prescription;
• contract exclusions; and
• current doctrinal and judicial authority.

That merits branch remains unresolved.

G3.5 Credit reporting remains separate

The five-year maximum in CDC art. 43 §1 is not a universal collection period. Section 5’s post-prescription reporting consequence is tied to the actual prescription of the collection action, which must first be classified under Civil Code or special law. Full database correction, positive-credit, LGPD, notice, damages and local enforcement issues remain deferred. Planalto

G4. Seven conditional fictional workflows

All people, instruments, dates and amounts below are invented. The calculations demonstrate conditional mechanics, not actual legal deadlines or advice.

H01 — Single written liquid contract, maturity known

Facts. A consumer signed an ordinary private written contract stating a liquid unsecured balance. The whole balance was due June 30, 2021. Assume no special product law, no negotiable instrument and no suspension.

Category: Civil Code art. 206 §5(I), conditionally five years.

Uninterrupted illustration

• Assumed legally relevant start: June 30, 2021.
• Applicable stipulated period: 5 years.
• Civil-year formula: June 30, 2021 + 5 years = June 30, 2026.
• Under CC art. 132, the beginning day is excluded and the ending day included; a legal-holiday endpoint moves to the next business day.

Alternative interruption. Assume the debtor signed an unequivocal acknowledgment on September 15, 2023, and no earlier interruption occurred.

• First qualifying interruption: September 15, 2023.
• Fresh period: September 15, 2023 + 5 years = September 15, 2028.

This alternative fails if the document was not unequivocal, was signed by the wrong actor, concerned another debt, occurred after prescription had completed, or followed an earlier interruption.

Claims/sources: C002, C010–C012, C026, C033 and C055; S001 arts. 132, 189, 199, 202 and 206 §5(I).

Missing proof: Contract, maturity clause, balance calculation, payment ledger, acknowledgment and complete event history.

Adverse branch: If the amount was materially illiquid, five years may not be the correct classification. If a special credit title existed, another period may control.

Exact next question: On the alleged accrual date, did the instrument itself establish a presently due and ascertainable debt? Planalto+3

H02 — Leap-day maturity

Facts. A stipulated liquid written balance became enforceable on February 29, 2024. No interruption or suspension occurred.

Conditional calculation

• Start: February 29, 2024.
• Five years later, 2029 has no February 29.
• CC art. 132 §3 states that month/year periods expire on the same-numbered day or on the immediate following day when exact correspondence is absent.
• Conditional endpoint: March 1, 2029.

Formula:

February 29, 2024 + 5 civil years = March 1, 2029 because February 29, 2029 does not exist.

If March 1 were a legally relevant holiday, CC art. 132 §1 would move the endpoint to the next business day. No holiday determination is made here.

Suspension branch: If a legally supported suspension lasted S verified calendar days, the analysis is not safely “March 1, 2029” without applying the exact suspension dates. Symbolically:

adjusted endpoint = base endpoint + verified unconsumed suspension interval

The actual method must respect when the suspension began and ended; a round number cannot be invented.

Claims/sources: C002, C011, C022–C025 and C055.

Missing proof: Exact accrual event, applicable relationship/capacity facts and all suspension evidence.

Adverse branch: A condition may have delayed accrual beyond February 29, or the obligation may not have been liquid.

Exact next question: What event made the creditor’s claim immediately enforceable on February 29, rather than merely creating the contract? Planalto+1

H03 — Instalments and uncertain acceleration

Facts. An ordinary unsecured written agreement has twelve liquid instalments due on the fifteenth of each month from January through December 2022. A creditor sent an “acceleration” notice on March 15, 2022, but the clause and delivery proof are absent.

Conditional per-instalment illustration

• First instalment: January 15, 2022 + 5 years = January 15, 2027.
• Last instalment: December 15, 2022 + 5 years = December 15, 2027.

Each date remains subject to a qualifying interruption, suspension and endpoint rule.

Acceleration branch: This pass does not collapse every instalment into one March 15, 2022 start. The answer depends on:

• automatic versus optional acceleration;
• whether the clause benefits only the creditor;
• whether notice was contractually required and proved;
• whether acceleration made future instalments immediately enforceable;
• whether the creditor later waived acceleration; and
• current authority for the exact product and procedural route.

Claims/sources: C014–C015 and C058.

Missing proof: Full schedule, clause, notice, receipt, payments and product classification.

Adverse branch: A negotiable title or regulated credit product may have a special rule. A judgment or executed settlement may create a different title.

Exact next question: Did the contract and the proved notice legally change the maturity of every future instalment, or merely permit immediate suit at the creditor’s option? STJ+1

H04 — Proposed part payment and disputed acknowledgment

Facts. Before the assumed deadline, a consumer writes: “I dispute the stated balance, but I can pay R$100 to stop calls.” In an alternative version, the consumer signs: “I acknowledge owing R$12,000 under Contract X and agree to pay R$100 today.”

Conditional answer

• The first statement may be inconsistent with unequivocal recognition of the claimed right.
• The second is stronger evidence of acknowledgment but still requires authenticity, authority, debt matching and the absence of a prior interruption.
• The R$100 is an invented private amount, not a statutory threshold.
• No conclusion is made that either statement creates a novation.

Claims/sources: C026, C033–C038.

Missing proof: Complete communication, signature/authentication, allocation, contract and earlier events.

Adverse branch: Payment after prescription completed raises waiver/voluntary-payment issues rather than pre-expiration interruption.

Exact next question: Did the debtor unmistakably recognize the creditor’s legal right to the disputed balance, rather than merely discuss a practical resolution? Planalto+2

H05 — Suit filed just before the apparent endpoint

Facts. Assume a five-year claim began May 10, 2020, producing a conditional May 10, 2025 endpoint. The creditor filed suit May 9, 2025. Citation occurred later.

Conditional answer

Filing alone is not the entire analysis. The interruption may relate back to May 9 only if:

1. the court issued the qualifying order directing citation;
2. the claimant adopted the necessary citation measures within CPC art. 240 §2’s ten-day procedural period; and
3. any remaining service delay was attributable exclusively to the court rather than claimant inaction.

The ten-day period is counted in procedural business days under CPC art. 219. No final diligence date can be calculated without the procedural starting notice and court holiday calendar.

Claims/sources: C027–C029 and C045–C048.

Missing proof: Petition timestamp, citation order, notice, required step, claimant response, addresses, service attempts and court-delay record.

Adverse branch: If the filing was before maturity, lacked a viable claim, or the claimant did not perform required steps, retroactivity may fail. A defendant’s spontaneous appearance may raise additional procedural issues not resolved here.

Exact next question: Which specific claimant-controlled step did the court require, when did the corresponding procedural period begin, and was that step timely completed? Planalto+1

H06 — Collector letter versus statutory protest

Facts. A creditor mails a unilateral demand on January 10, 2025. In another branch, an eligible debt document enters the Lei 9.492 art. 11-A pre-protest system.

Conditional answer

• The ordinary unilateral letter is not an unequivocal debtor acknowledgment under CC art. 202(VI).
• It might constitute extrajudicial demand for mora in a no-term obligation under CC art. 397 sole paragraph, but creating mora is not automatically the same as interrupting prescription.
• Under art. 11-A, the proposal-presentation date has interruptive effect only if prior negotiation fails and the matter is converted to protest.
• The notary’s acceptance does not adjudicate prescription.

Claims/sources: C031–C036.

Missing proof: Instrument eligibility, original maturity, protest submission, proposal date, failed negotiation, conversion and prior interruption history.

Adverse branch: A judicial protest or another qualifying formal act could operate differently. An ineligible document may not support the attempted route.

Exact next question: Was there a completed statutory protest process satisfying the relevant conditions, or only a private creditor communication? Planalto+2

H07 — Apparently prescribed debt, voluntary payment and new agreement

Facts. Assume a liquid written ordinary claim accrued August 1, 2018, and no event affected the clock.

Conditional initial calculation

August 1, 2018 + 5 years = August 1, 2023

In January 2026, the consumer voluntarily pays R$200 and signs a short payment paper.

Conditional answer

• The payment is not recoverable solely because it satisfied a prescribed debt, under CC art. 882.
• The R$200 payment does not retroactively “interrupt” a clock that had already completed.
• The paper might constitute express or tacit waiver, confirmation, settlement or a new obligation.
• A true novation requires animus novandi; without it, the later obligation may merely confirm the first.
• No conclusion is made that the entire old balance automatically acquired a fresh five-year period.

Claims/sources: C017–C018, C021 and C037–C039.

Missing proof: Exact paper, disclosures, amount, consideration, new maturity, parties and circumstances.

Adverse branch: Fraud, incapacity, abusive terms, invalid underlying work or third-party prejudice could affect the later agreement. Those merits are outside this pass.

Exact next question: What enforceable promise did the later document independently create, and does it clearly waive prescription or replace the old obligation? Planalto+2

G5. P01 old-to-new disposition

Literal reviewed P01 row preserved

Original coordinator status: explicit_deferred_hold_preserved.

PASS-05 addition

The original P01 row is not overwritten. PASS-05 supplies only a narrow federal ordinary-claim analysis. It does not approve any actual limitation defense, collection practice or debt-advice publication.

PASS-05 source register

Status key

• FRESH-READ—OPERATIVE: current enacted or compiled official legal body read.
• FRESH-READ—AMENDMENT: official enacted amending body read to trace current wording.
• FRESH-READ—OFFICIAL STATUS: official current court-status material.
• FRESH-READ—OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION: official court news or jurisprudence digest; not legislation or necessarily a repetitive holding.
• FAILED: attempted official direct body failed; no substantive proposition derived.

Access: October 26, 2026 PDT / October 27, 2026 UTC. Source-specific clock times are unknown. All opened materials were HTML; therefore zero-based PDF indices are not applicable. Printed gazette pages were not established from the opened HTML unless expressly stated.

Displayed source count: 16. Seven enacted or compiled primary legal bodies; eight official STJ status/interpretive bodies; one failed official direct-item route. No source-specific access time is asserted.

Atomic claim/evidence register

Displayed claim count: 60, C001–C060.

Complete granular core coverage

Every row below cross-references the cited claim register. “Answered” means only that the narrow federal gateway has been identified.

Displayed core-coverage count: 75 rows, P05-G01 through G75.

Separately named deferred families

Displayed deferred-family count: 28 rows.

All 27 inherited state/DF branches

The names below are inherited from the saved P01 territorial inventory. No geography API or fresh official enumeration was used. Federal prescription statutes do not certify every state/DF court, protest, holiday, Procon or municipal implementation.

Displayed territorial count: 27 rows; zero state/DF branches cleared.

Evidence-backed article, tool and checklist opportunities

A safe tool should never display a single green “Debt expired” result. Its highest-confidence output should be a branch such as:

“Five years is a candidate period only if the claim was a liquid debt contained in a qualifying instrument, no special law displaces it, and the verified event history shows no impediment, suspension or earlier qualifying interruption.”

Researcher self-check

Exact documents still needed for any real classification

1. Complete original contract and all amendments.
2. Product and obligation classification.
3. Evidence supporting the asserted liquid amount.
4. Every maturity and acceleration clause.
5. Full payment and allocation ledger.
6. All alleged acknowledgments or new agreements.
7. Judicial and extrajudicial protest records.
8. Litigation filing, citation-order and diligence chronology.
9. Any incapacity, protected-relationship, condition or criminal-dependency facts.
10. Reporting and collection communications, analyzed separately.
11. Applicable state/DF court, protest and holiday materials.
12. Current Tema 1264 disposition at the time of actual use.

Final disposition: PASS-05 establishes a narrow federal classification and event framework. It does not establish that any real debt is prescribed, forgiven, collectible, uncollectible, reportable, payable, refundable or subject to a particular settlement outcome.

END C_BR PASS-05