Cohabitation and Property Division: What Does Justice Hold for You?

Imagine: you have been living as a couple for ten years in the pretty town of Nogent-sur-Seine. You bought a house together, put money into a joint account, but never married. One day, separation comes. You wonder: will I lose half of what I invested? This question is asked by hundreds of cohabitants every year. The Rennes Court of Appeal has just given a clear answer in a ruling of 23 May 2024: cohabitation does not create a matrimonial property regime. In other words, no community of property, no automatic division. But then, how are assets distributed? The decision details the rules, and it holds some surprises.

For the law of cohabitants is not that of spouses. No marriage contract, no mandatory rules. Each asset must be allocated according to its origin and the contributions of each party. The Court reminds that Article 1240 of the Civil Code (which allows compensation for damage caused by another's fault) may sometimes apply, but only if fault, loss and a causal link are proved. In this case, the judges had to decide a classic dispute: who must repay the renovation work carried out on the shared home?

The facts: a story that happens every day

Mr X, owner of a flat in La Chapelle-Saint-Luc, and his partner, Ms Y, had been living together since 2012. In 2016, they decided to move into a larger house, bought by Mr X alone. But Ms Y contributed to the renovation work: new kitchen, bathroom, insulation. She invested personal funds and a lot of time. Five years later, the breakup occurs. Ms Y claims repayment of the sums invested, about 25,000 euros, plus compensation for her contribution in kind. Mr X refuses, arguing that it was gifts or a contribution to the common life.

The court of first instance partly rules in favour of Ms Y: it orders Mr X to pay her 10,000 euros on the ground of unjust enrichment (a principle that prevents someone from being unjustly enriched at another's expense). But Mr X appeals. Before the Rennes Court of Appeal, he argues that Ms Y was simply contributing to household expenses, as most cohabitants do. For her part, Ms Y produces invoices, photos and witness statements proving that she financed and carried out the work herself.

The magistrates had to examine each piece of evidence. They found that the work had increased the value of the property and that Mr X alone benefited from it after the separation. But beware: simple cohabitation does not create a partnership (with profit sharing) between the partners. Each remains owner of what they bought, unless there is proof of an intention to make a gift or a debt between them. Here, Ms Y had never said she was giving the money away. The Court therefore confirmed the principle of repayment, but reduced the amount to 8,000 euros, considering that part of the work corresponded to improvements from which Ms Y also benefited during the cohabitation.

The reasoning of the court — dissected

The Rennes Court of Appeal laid down a fundamental principle: in the absence of marriage or a civil partnership (PACS), cohabitants are considered as two separate individuals with no common patrimony. This means there is no legal system of division. Each asset must be allocated according to the rules of ordinary law. Article 1240 of the Civil Code (tort liability) only applies if one of the cohabitants committed a fault that caused loss to the other. But here, the fault was not established: living together and separating is not a fault. The judges therefore dismissed this ground.

Instead, they relied on unjust enrichment (Article 1303 of the Civil Code), also called unjustified enrichment. This mechanism allows a person who has enriched another without justification to claim compensation. It requires three conditions: an enrichment, a corresponding impoverishment, and the absence of a legal cause (such as a contract or a gift). In this case, Mr X was enriched by the increase in value resulting from the work, while Ms Y was impoverished by her expenditure and work. And there was neither a contract nor a gift: Ms Y did not intend to make a gift.

The Court therefore confirmed the right to compensation, but limited the amount to 8,000 euros. Why? Because it considered that Ms Y also benefited from the work during her cohabitation. Indeed, a renovated kitchen and bathroom improve the living environment of all occupants. The period of enjoyment (about 4 years) was taken into account to reduce the claim. This is an important point: unjust enrichment does not mean full reimbursement; it takes account of the advantage derived by the impoverished party.

This is not a departure from established case law. The Court follows a consistent line: for years, the courts have refused to create a "quasi-matrimonial regime" for cohabitants. Each case is decided on its own facts, based on the evidence provided. Here, the Court made a classic application of ordinary law. Nothing revolutionary, but a timely reminder: if you live together and invest in your partner's home, protect yourself in writing.

What this means for you — concretely

Are you a landlord living in cohabitation? If you rent out a property of which your partner is a de facto co-owner, be careful. This decision shows that every contribution must be traceable. If your partner contributes to loan repayments or works, he or she could claim compensation in the event of separation. To avoid this, a loan agreement or written acknowledgment of debt is essential.

Let's take a concrete example: in La Chapelle-Saint-Luc, a property bought for 150,000 euros. You, the sole owner, pay 100,000 euros as a deposit, your partner pays 50,000 euros without being on the title deed. Without a contract, this sum could be considered a loan or a gift depending on the circumstances. But if it is clearly a capital contribution, you will have to repay it in the event of a breakup. Without proof, the court might consider it a contribution to household expenses, therefore non-reimbursable.

Are you a tenant moving in with your partner? You may contribute to bills or renovation work. Be aware that your monthly payments will generally be regarded as contributions to common expenses, and thus not recoverable. However, if you finance major renovation work (roof, windows), keep all invoices in your name and, if possible, have the owner (your partner) sign a debt acknowledgment.

Finally, for co-owners: if you buy a property together, you are in co-ownership (joint ownership with defined shares). In the event of separation, you can request a division. But beware: if one has paid more than their share, they can claim the excess. It is better to define the respective shares at the time of purchase in the notarial deed.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Draw up a cohabitation agreement: this document, signed before a notary, can provide for the distribution of assets, each party's contributions in the event of a property purchase, and exit terms. Even if not legally binding, it is evidence between the parties.
• Keep all evidence: record bank transfers, invoices in your name, emails or text messages showing the intention (loan, gift, contribution). Without written evidence, your word will not suffice.
• Avoid joint accounts for separate projects: a joint account for day-to-day expenses is practical, but if you pay a large sum into it for a property deposit, you lose the trace of ownership. Prefer separate accounts and transfers with a clear reference.
• Consult a lawyer before a significant investment: a property purchase or major renovation work deserves prior legal advice. A few hundred euros in consultation can save you thousands in legal proceedings.

Further reading: related case law and developments

The Court of Cassation has issued several decisions in the same vein. For example, in a decision of 28 March 2023 (No. 21-24.567), it specified that a cohabitant cannot claim a debt for their contribution to the purchase of a property without proof of a separate contribution. The trend is clear: judges protect the partner who has invested, but require solid evidence. However, they do not create an automatic right to division. Other decisions, such as that of the Paris Court of Appeal in 2022, have granted compensation on the basis of unjust enrichment, but deducting the value of the use of the property.

What future developments? Some legislators are calling for a status for cohabitants, but nothing is in sight. Case law is likely to remain stable: no matrimonial regime, application of ordinary law. This means: prepare your evidence or make a contract.

Key points to remember

• Cohabitation does not entail any automatic division: each asset remains the property of the person who acquired it, unless a contribution is proved.
• Unjust enrichment allows you to obtain reimbursement: but only if you prove your contribution and that the other party benefited without cause.
• Always keep written records: invoices, bank transfers, acknowledgment of debt.
• A cohabitation agreement or notarial contract can secure your financial relationships.
• In case of dispute, consult quickly: limitation periods (5 years for unjust enrichment) run quickly.

Are you in a similar situation? A 30-minute initial consultation with Maître Perucca (€45) can save you months of proceedings — and often much more. Book an appointment →