Droit du Patrimoine

A property complex held in co-ownership

📅 Décision du 12 February 1985⚖️ Cour de cassation

Where a property complex held in co-ownership has been partitioned into several separately owned lots, with one lot allocated to each of the co-owners and one parcel retained in co-ownership, a judgment lacks legal basis which declares the transfer of one of those lots unenforceable against the owners of the other lots, in so far as that transfer concerned the aforementioned parcel, on the ground that the seller had failed to complete the formalities prescribed by Articles 815-14 and 815-16 of the French Civil Code. Indeed, it fell to the Court of Appeal to establish, as the pleadings had invited it to do, whether that parcel, which served as an access route to the divided parcels surrounding it, did not have the character of an essential appurtenance of the property it served, and was not thereby held in a state of forced and perpetual co-ownership falling outside the provisions of the aforementioned Articles of the French Civil Code.

Reference decision: Cass. • No. 84-10.301 • 1985-02-12 • View the decision →

This decision provides important insight into your family and property rights. Here is what it changes for you.

The situation

Where a property complex held in co-ownership has been partitioned into several separately owned lots, with one lot allocated to each of the co-owners and one parcel retained in co-ownership, a judgment lacks legal basis which declares the transfer of one of those lots unenforceable against the owners of the other lots, in so far as that transfer concerned the aforementioned parcel, on the ground that the seller had failed to complete the formalities prescribed by Articles 815-14 and 815-16 of the French Civil Code. Indeed, it fell to the Court of Appeal to establish, as the pleadings had invited it to do, whether that parcel, which served as an access route to the divided parcels surrounding it, did not have the character of an essential appurtenance of the property it served, and was not thereby held in a state of forced and perpetual co-ownership falling outside the provisions of the aforementioned Articles of the French Civil Code.

What the law says

This decision confirms the fundamental principles of property law.

Key takeaways

  • Strictly observe the statutory time limits for bringing an appeal
  • Keep all your supporting documents (title deeds, legal instruments, correspondence)
  • Plan ahead: preventive legal advice is always less costly than litigation

For an analysis of your situation: 30-minute consultation at €70 with Maître Perucca.

⚖️ Does this apply to you?

Maître Bruno Perucca, French family & estate lawyer, Antibes — available across France (FR/EN/IT).

📞 +33 6 89 73 10 87  |  ⭐ 4.9/5 (304 reviews)

Book 30 min — €70   donation-patrimoine/" style="color:#1a56db;font-weight:500;">→ Learn more

Informations juridiques

  • Numéro: 84-10.301
  • Juridiction: Cour de cassation
  • Date de décision: 12 février 1985

Mots-clés

droit de la famillejurisprudencepatrimoine
BP

À propos de l'auteur

Maître Bruno Perucca — Avocat au Barreau de Grasse, Docteur en Droit, spécialisé en droit de la famille et du patrimoine. Chaque article de ce magazine est rédigé à partir de l'analyse d'une décision de jurisprudence réelle, commentée et mise en perspective par Maître Bruno Perucca.

Avertissement: Les analyses présentées sur ce site sont fournies à titre informatif uniquement et ne constituent pas des conseils juridiques personnalisés. Pour une consultation adaptée à votre situation, contactez un avocat.

★★★★★4.9/5 — Avis Google

Maître Bruno Perucca, Doctor of Law

Phone and video consultations available — Fast appointments

Book an appointment
First consultation 30 minutes — €45

🔒 Confidentiel • Sans engagement • Réponse sous 24h

Continuer votre lecture

Les dispositions de la loi n° 46-942