The growth of short‑term and micro‑short‑term rentals on digital platforms such as QuintoAndar, Airbnb, Vrbo, Booking and Zap Imóveis has created a new profile of debtors: someone with significant real estate assets and recurring income, but little apparent liquidity in traditional bank accounts.
In this scenario, enforcement does not need to be limited to the property itself; it can also extend to the civil fruits the asset produces, namely the rental income received through these platforms.
Find below 3 points to understand how this approach can enhance the effectiveness of debt collection:
1. Property and income – seizures that can operate cumulatively: There are two distinct – and cumulative – objects of attachment. First, the property itself: seizure of the real estate asset, with the possibility of a future judicial sale. This offers structural security for the credit but tends to be slower and subject to disputes (homestead/family home protection, co‑ownership, valuation challenges, and so on). Second, the fruits of the lease (rents/nightly rates): seizure of the rental receivables owed to the debtor (whether an individual or a company under their control) by the platforms. These present and future receivables are attachable assets and allow for a faster and more continuous satisfaction of the debt. Both measures can be adopted at the same time: the property is seized and, simultaneously, the income it generates through digital platforms is directed to repayment of the obligation.
2. Digital platforms as a channel to reach the rental income: In short‑term rentals, the payment flow is simple: the guest pays the platform, which withholds its fees and transfers the net amount to the host. This receivable is a credit held by the debtor against the platform and is therefore subject to attachment. In practice, it is common to request that the court issue official notices to companies such as QuintoAndar, Zap Imóveis, Airbnb, Vrbo and Booking, asking them to inform: whether the debtor (by tax ID) or companies controlled by them are registered as hosts/lessors; which properties are listed; the booking history and amounts transferred; the destination bank account; and whether there are future credits arising from confirmed reservations. Based on this information, the court may order the platforms to withhold and pay into court the amounts owed to the debtor, up to the limit of the debt, without prejudice to any existing attachment over the property itself.
3. Why this matters for the credit and collections market: Seizing rental income from digital platforms is not just a modern alternative for enforcement; it is a strategic reinforcement of the execution toolkit. For creditors, it is a way to access the debtor’s real liquidity, even when they do not maintain relevant balances in traditional bank accounts. For debtors, it is a clear signal that the economic exploitation of real estate assets in the digital economy can also be reached by enforcement measures, and should be factored into risk and cash‑flow planning.
The ability to direct enforcement both against the property and against the income it generates on digital platforms brings collection strategies closer to the debtor’s actual economic reality and reduces the gap between formal assets and effective liquidity. For financial institutions, developers and creditors in general, this means incorporating the traceability of real estate income in the digital economy into recovery strategies, including at the due diligence and renegotiation stages. For those on the other side, monetizing properties through short‑term rentals, the message is that this cash flow is not “off the radar” of the courts and should be factored into risk management, corporate structuring and the prioritization of payments.
