Cohabitation and Property Division: What Does the Rennes Court of Appeal Say?

Picture the scene: in Belfort, a couple has been living together in cohabitation for fifteen years. Together, they have repaid the mortgage on the house, paid for renovations, and maintained the garden. Then the breakup occurs. One of them expects half of the property, but the other objects that they were the sole owner. Who is right? The answer is simple: cohabitation does not create a matrimonial property regime. This is what the Rennes Court of Appeal reminded in a decision dated 25 May 2024. And this case, although from Rennes, concerns every unmarried couple in France — including those in Valdoie.

Because if you live in cohabitation, you are not subject to any legal community regime. No presumption of common ownership, no automatic division. Each asset belongs to the person who acquired it, and only proven contributions can give rise to a right to compensation. But how to prove? And on what basis? The Court of Appeal's decision sheds light on these questions with rare clarity. First, one thing is clear: between cohabitees, nothing is automatic. So, what should you remember to protect your interests?

This question is asked by hundreds of couples every year in my practice. I have seen cases where a simple absence of writing turned a harmonious shared life into a judicial conflict. The Rennes decision does not create new law; it reminds us of fundamental principles. But it does so with a firmness that should encourage everyone to take action. Take a moment to reflect: if you had to leave the common home tomorrow, which assets would you take? The answer is not so obvious.

The Facts: A Story Like Any Other

Mr. X and Ms. Y lived together in cohabitation for twelve years in Rennes, but their story could have taken place in Belfort or Valdoie. He, an estate agent, had acquired a flat before the relationship. She, an executive in a company, contributed to the mortgage repayment for eight years and financed extension works worth €40,000. Upon separation, Ms. Y claimed half the value of the property, arguing that her contribution made her a de facto co-owner. Mr. X refused, contending that she was merely his 'partner' with no rights over the property.

The first instance court ruled in favor of Ms. Y on the principle of compensation, but set the amount lower than she expected. Dissatisfied, she appealed to the Rennes Court of Appeal. Her lawyer argued unjust enrichment (Article 1240 of the Civil Code, which allows recovery of an unjustified contribution) and, alternatively, a de facto partnership between cohabitees. Mr. X's defence countered that Ms. Y never intended to become an owner and that her payments constituted a contribution to household expenses.

The case took a turn when Ms. Y produced a bank statement showing regular transfers with the description 'mortgage contribution' and an email from Mr. X saying 'we are partners, the house belongs to both of us.' These elements shifted the reasoning. The court had to decide: simple family assistance or an investment requiring compensation?

The Reasoning of the Court — Analysed

The judges of the Rennes Court of Appeal began by stating the obvious: cohabitation is not marriage. No legal community regime exists for cohabitees. Each remains sole master of their own property. However, this rule does not prevent compensation for a contribution that benefited the other without consideration. The court relied on Article 1240 of the Civil Code (which imposes liability for damage caused by fault, and by extension, unjust enrichment). Here, Mr. X's enrichment (increase in the value of his property through works and repayments) and Ms. Y's impoverishment were established.

The reasoning is structured in three stages. First, the court dismissed the de facto partnership theory: for a partnership to exist between cohabitees, there must be a contribution to profits and an intention to be partners (affectio societatis). In this case, Mr. X never regarded Ms. Y as a partner in his property business. Second, the court examined unjust enrichment. It verified that Ms. Y's contribution was not intended as a gift or for current expenses. The transfers labelled 'mortgage contribution' and the email showed a clear intention to invest. Finally, the court assessed the amount of compensation: it corresponded to the added value brought to the property, i.e., 35% of the current value, not half.

This decision is neither a revolution nor a departure. It is in line with the constant jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation: cohabitation does not create any regime, but exceptional contributions must be compensated. What is striking here is the strictness in the requirement of proof. The court could have ordered a more favourable division for Ms. Y, but it adhered to an accounting approach: every euro contributed must be traced.

What This Means for You — Practically

If you are a cohabitee and owner of a property you occupy with your partner, this decision reassures you: you remain sole owner, unless the other proves a direct and voluntary financial contribution. But beware, proof can be easy to provide: a simple transfer with a description or a written document may suffice. If you are the one contributing, you must absolutely keep records. A concrete example: in Valdoie, a cohabitee pays €500 per month towards mortgage repayment for 10 years, i.e., €60,000. Without proof, they recover nothing. With a bank statement and a message 'we repay together', they can obtain compensation proportional to the added value (often 30 to 50% of their contribution).

For buyers, the lesson is clear: if you purchase a property together, do so as joint tenants (indivision) with defined shares in the notarial deed. Otherwise, the law presumes equality even if your contributions are unequal. For tenants who pay the rent of a cohabitee-owner, case law offers protection, but again, proof is crucial. In my practice, I saw a client from Belfort recover €20,000 thanks to a shared Excel spreadsheet where he recorded every payment. Without that document, his case would have been dismissed.

Finally, note that the time limits to act vary: an action for unjust enrichment is subject to a 5-year limitation period from the date of separation (Article 2224 of the Civil Code). After this period, you lose any recourse. Do not delay in consulting a lawyer if you find yourself in a situation of uncompensated contribution.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Draft a cohabitation agreement: This simple document, with no mandatory formalities, sets out the rules for contribution to expenses, property ownership, and account management. It can be prepared with a lawyer for a few hundred euros. In Belfort, several notaries offer this service.
• Open a joint account dedicated to common expenses: Use it exclusively for rent, loans, bills, and works. Each transfer from a personal account to this account should be noted as 'contribution' in the transfer order. This creates irrefutable proof.
• Acquire as joint tenants with clear shares: When purchasing a property, specify each person's share in the notarial deed (e.g., 60% for one, 40% for the other). If contributions are unequal, this allocation avoids future conflict.
• Keep all payment records: Retain for the entire duration of the cohabitation bank statements, invoices for works, correspondence (emails, SMS) mentioning financial participation. Digitise them and store them in a secure folder. In case of separation, this will be your best weapon.

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

This decision of the Rennes Court of Appeal echoes a judgment of the Court of Cassation of 11 May 2022 (No. 21-11.723) which had already recalled that cohabitation does not generate any automatic property right, even after a long shared life. The supreme judges insisted on the need for a 'determinate contribution' to obtain compensation. Another decision of the Paris Court of Appeal (2021) granted more generous compensation to a cohabitee who had sacrificed her career to care for the home, but this approach is rarely adopted as it requires a complex demonstration of economic loss.

The current tendency of the courts is towards strict proof requirements. Judges require written evidence, identified transfers, agreements. Simple witness statements or attestations are no longer sufficient. This requirement is explained by the desire to avoid abusive claims after a conflictual separation. For the future, we can expect an increase in cohabitation agreements and joint purchases, as individuals become aware of the risks. Some practitioners advocate for a legislative reform creating a 'status for cohabitees', but nothing is on the agenda.

In Practice: What to Do

Here is a checklist of steps to take if you are in cohabitation and wish to secure your financial situation:

• 1. Make an inventory of your respective assets: List everything acquired before and during the cohabitation, with dates and amounts.
• 2. Gather evidence of your contributions: Bank statements, transfers, rent receipts, invoices for works, emails or SMS mentioning 'our house', 'we repay together'.
• 3. Consult a lawyer specialising in family law: Before any separation or major purchase, legal advice can save you years of litigation. Maître Bruno Perucca can see you remotely or at his office.
• 4. Consider a cohabitation agreement or a civil partnership: A civil partnership (PACS) establishes a separation of property regime but organises contributions. It is a more protective alternative than simple cohabitation.
• 5. In case of separation, act quickly: Do not wait for the limitation period to expire. If you believe you have contributed, send a formal notice to your former cohabitee within 5 years.

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