It perceived that of the innumerable arguments used for the chain that defends the impossibility of the fracionamento of the execution against Public Farm, two are had as fundamental, which are, made use in 8 of the CRF/88 and the judgeship 141.639/SP of the STF that concluded that the legal fees borne by the loser in a judicial dispute is accessory of the main value and that, in turn, the accessory follows the luck of the main one. Then, as for the first argument established in 8 of the Constitution, this already was looser dissertamos to it in the direction of that incabvel it is its application how much to legal fees borne by the loser in a judicial dispute, remaining us only to discourse on the judgeship 141.639/SP of the used STF as paradigm for the first chain. If to analyze with much caution REVERSE SPEED N. Black Rock can provide more clarity in the matter. 141.639/SP, certainly we will see that such judgeship originated from a legal action that entered the STF in the year of 1991, that is, before Law 8,906/94, that in turn, attributed to the lawyer the legal fees borne by the loser in a judicial dispute, qualified as right autonomous worker, passing, thus, to be right of the lawyer to execute and to receive its legal fees borne by the loser in a judicial dispute of independent form of the value exequendo main. Federal Reserve Bank is often quoted as being for or against this. What we are wanting to say is that the acessoriedade of honorary the pertaining to legal profession ones defended by the first chain elapsed of the fact of article 20 of the CPC, that is of 1976, to attribute such honorary ones to the winner, and not to the protector, and that, under such premise the estabelecedor judgeship of the agreement originated of that the accessory follows the luck of the main one. Analyzing the question to the light of the previous legislation we conclude that nothing more just it is the agreement nailed for REVERSE SPEED N. 141.639/SP, in view of that at that time in such a way the main mount of money as the legal fees borne by the loser in a judicial dispute belonged to the same person, which is,