What did Larissa Manoela learn after splitting with her parents and managing her own assets?

After breaking up with her parents and marrying André Frambach, actress Larissa Manoela decided to take charge of her business. Even considering it a challenging mission, she says that, now, read all your contracts before signing. To do this, you also seek help from experts and listen to opinions before forming your own.

“I have a very responsible position and I need to have the knowledge to occupy it. But I like to exchange with my team and understand what they think”, said the artist in a recent interview with Universa, from UOL.

But it was not always so. She says she already doubted her ability a lot. “Sometimes, all we need is to take a deep breath, wipe away the tears and understand what’s going on. Nothing will fall from the sky,” she says. The actress admits that the pain transformed her.

Family fight

The fight with her parents and businesspeople, Silvana Taques and Gilberto Elias, came into the spotlight last year, when the actress broke her silence and spoke about the management of her assets.

Larissa, who started her career at the age of 4, said at the time that she owned just 2% of the partnership in one of the companies open to manage her assets and professional contracts, while her parents had a 98% stake. This company would have been opened when the artist was still a minor. When questioning the parents, they claimed that the quotas were divided equally between the three, with around 33% for each.

This family and societal “imbroglio” has brought to light a series of discussions about the role of parents who manage the heritage built by children and adolescents. According to the Civil Code, parents hold family power and, therefore, must represent their children under 16 years of age and accompany those between 16 and 18 years of age, being responsible for administering the minors’ assets, until who reach full civil capacity, either through majority or through emancipation, according to lawyers interviewed by the InfoMoney.

But parents, according to legislation, cannot sell their young children’s assets without a plausible justification. The Public Prosecutor’s Office can monitor this movement, even through external provocation – such as a complaint from a relative who suspects that the father or mother is exercising family power excessively, according to experts.

In the situation experienced by Larissa Manoela, the problems lie in the lack of transparency, including in the structuring of society. Parents could never own a company where the assets are generated by the work of a child. At most, they could have the right to enjoy the property, even without owning it. In other words, they can live in a property, but they cannot sell it. Upon reaching the age of majority, she would have full civil capacity and be able to manage her assets.

Lawyers said at the time that nothing prevents parents from continuing to manage their children’s assets, even after they reach the age of majority, but it is necessary to have defined roles, remuneration, in other words, everything regulated so that bonds of trust can also be maintained. Without this, family disagreements happen and the only way is through the courts. However, when the case reaches a court, resolution can take three to five years, considering the trial from the first instance to the highest levels.

To avoid this type of situation, the ideal in a corporate format of a “child artist” with parents, for example, is a legal entity with just one partner, considering the parents as administrators until the child turns 16. From that age onwards, the role will be to “assist” the child, but never own the shares.