Cohabitation and Division of Assets: The Court of Appeal of Toulouse Rules

Imagine: you have lived with your partner for ten years in a house bought together, without being married. Years pass, accounts merge, renovations follow one after another… Then one day, separation. Who keeps the house? Who repays the loan? In Trappes as elsewhere, this question poisons hundreds of couples every year. The Court of Appeal of Toulouse has just issued a decision that sets the record straight: cohabitation, unlike marriage or a Pacs, does not create any community of property regime. Assets remain those of each individual, unless there is proof of a contrary intention.

What does this decision mean for you, cohabitants? In the absence of a contract or organised co-ownership, Article 1240 of the Civil Code (the one creating an obligation to compensate for damage caused by fault) becomes the key to the division. In other words, if one partner has enriched the other without consideration, he or she can claim compensation – but only on condition of proving the contribution and the absence of any intention to make a gift. A real obstacle course, as shown by the case decided in Toulouse.

A situation I have seen dozens of times in my Versailles practice: couples who have put everything in common without formality, and who, upon separation, discover that the court cannot act as if they were married. This decision of the Court of Appeal merely confirms established case law, but it has the merit of reminding an uncomfortable truth: without a legal framework, fairness is a chimera.

The Facts: A Story That Happens Every Day

Mr X, a sales executive in Trappes, and Mrs Y, a nurse in Plaisir, met in 2015. Very quickly, they moved in together into a rented house. In 2018, they bought a flat in Toulouse, where they planned to settle. The property was acquired in co-ownership, each contributing unequally: Mr contributed €80,000, Mrs €20,000. The loan was taken out in both their names.

But love does not last. In 2023, the separation was brutal. Mrs left the home and stopped repaying the loan. Mr continued the monthly payments alone, but could no longer afford the expenses. He applied to the court for the division of the property and claimed compensation for the sums advanced for Mrs's benefit. The Toulouse High Court ordered the sale of the flat and sentenced Mrs to reimburse €15,000 to Mr on the grounds of unjust enrichment. Mrs appealed.

Before the court, she argued that Mr's contributions were disguised gifts, justified by their life together. She invoked the presumption of community that some judges had previously accepted for cohabitants – but which has never been legally recognised. Mr countered that he never intended to make a gift, and that each repayment was an informal loan. The Court of Appeal of Toulouse, in its judgment of 27 March 2025, upheld the principle but reduced the compensation to €10,000 for lack of sufficient proof for the remainder.

The Court's Reasoning — Analysed

The judges in Toulouse first recall a fundamental principle: in the absence of marriage or a Pacs, cohabitants are not subject to any matrimonial regime. Each retains his or her assets acquired before or during the cohabitation, unless they are bought together and in co-ownership. Article 815 of the Civil Code (relating to the rights of co-owners) then applies, but it only governs the management of the common property, not the accounts between partners.

To decide the dispute, the court uses the mechanism of unjust enrichment, based on Article 1303 of the Civil Code (the former 'unjust enrichment' rewritten by the 2016 reform). Specifically, it verifies that Mr has impoverished his patrimony for Mrs's benefit, without her providing any consideration. Here, Mr advanced all the monthly loan payments after Mrs left, and paid for renovation work. But note: part of these sums is considered a contribution to the costs of daily living (food, rent, leisure) – non-reimbursable. The court therefore carefully distinguishes what falls within the normal maintenance of the couple from what has actually benefited one to the detriment of the other.

This case is not a reversal. The Court of Cassation has always refused to extend the rules of marriage to cohabitants. But the judgment is exemplary in its meticulous analysis of the evidence: it shows that every euro must be justified. Mrs's arguments, invoking a 'will to help each other', were dismissed because they were not based on any written document. The presumption of a gift between cohabitants also does not exist – contrary to what some lawyers sometimes argue. The trend is therefore towards a strict application of general law, without favour for the cohabitation.

What This Changes for You — Concretely

If you are a co-owner with your cohabitant, this decision reminds you that your unequal contributions are not automatically compensated. For example, if you paid 70% of the deposit in Plaisir for a house worth €300,000, you can only recover the surplus on condition that you have written proof (bank statement, loan agreement, exchange of emails). Without it, the sale proceeds will be split 50/50, and you will have to prove the other's enrichment to obtain compensation.

For tenants living together, the issue does not arise if both names are on the lease. However, if only one is the tenant, the other may find themselves on the street without any right. Here, the judgment changes nothing: the cohabitant's right to housing is not protected.

If you are a purchaser with your partner, think carefully before buying without a contract. It is better to draft a clear co-ownership agreement, specifying the shares, repayment terms and allocation of expenses. The Court of Appeal's decision well illustrates the difficulties: without a written document, judges reduce the amounts awarded because the evidence is too fragile.

A concrete example: a couple in Trappes buys a property for €250,000. One contributes €50,000, the other €10,000, and the loan is €190,000. Upon separation after five years, the property is worth €280,000. Without an agreement, the sale yields €280,000, after deducting the outstanding loan (say €170,000 remaining), i.e. €110,000 to be shared equally: €55,000 each. The one who contributed €50,000 only gets back €55,000, whereas he paid €40,000 more than the other during the cohabitation. To obtain an additional amount, he must prove that the other was enriched at his expense – and the Toulouse court set a high bar. You must therefore act quickly: if the situation deteriorates, apply to the court within five years of separation (general limitation period). The sums at stake can be considerable: in my Versailles practice, I have seen clients lose up to €100,000 for failing to formalise their contributions.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Draft a co-ownership agreement at the time of purchase. At the notary's office, ask to specify each person's shares, financing terms and allocation of expenses. This is a minimal cost (a few hundred euros) that will save you years of litigation.
• Keep all proof of your contributions. Bank statements, transfers, invoices in your name, loan certificates. In case of separation, these will be your only weapons. Remember to archive everything electronically.
• Do not mix your current accounts without keeping a record. If you repay the loan or pay for work alone, do so by transfer with a clear description ('repayment of co-ownership loan'). Avoid cash.
• Anticipate separation by drafting a written document. A simple letter signed by both partners detailing their respective contributions may suffice to convince a judge. This can be done at any time, not just at the start.

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

This decision is part of a well-established line. The Court of Cassation, in a judgment of 3 November 2010 (appeal no. 09-13.759), had already ruled that unjust enrichment was the only possible basis between cohabitants. More recently, the Paris Court of Appeal, on 12 January 2024, awarded compensation to a cohabitant who had financed 60% of the purchase, but required 'irrefutable' evidence. The trend is therefore towards an increased requirement for written evidence: judges no longer accept simple presumptions based on cohabitation.

However, there is a certain evolution in the recognition of 'contributions in kind' (for example, a cohabitant who works for free in the other's business). Some courts are beginning to compensate them, but sparingly. The Toulouse court does not rule on this point, leaving the door open for future debates. In the future, the legislature may be tempted to intervene to create a protective status for long-term cohabitants, but nothing is underway.

Key Points to Remember

FAQ:

• Can I claim half of the house if I paid for the work? No, unless you are in co-ownership. You can only claim compensation for the enrichment of the other, on proof.
• What if my cohabitant leaves the home and stops repaying the loan? You must continue to pay, then claim his or her share. Apply to the court quickly to obtain an interim payment.
• Should I sign a Pacs to avoid these problems? A Pacs creates a regime of separation of property, but with rules on contribution to expenses. It is minimal protection. For optimal protection, a marriage contract is better.
• What is the time limit to act after separation? The action for unjust enrichment is subject to a five-year limitation period from the date of knowledge of the damage. Do not wait.
• How much does a procedure to divide assets in cohabitation cost? Expect between €2,000 and €5,000 in legal fees, plus possible expert fees. But a first consultation at €45 with a specialist can give you guidance.

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