Abuse of Majority in Co-ownership: How to Annul a General Meeting Decision?

Picture the scene: a beautiful building in Collioure, facing the sea. The co-owners meet at a general meeting (GM). A motion is passed: refusing a request for works by an owner. The frustrated owner believes the others have abused their majority. He takes the matter to court. But what must be proven to obtain the annulment of such a decision?

This question is asked by hundreds of co-owners every year. The answer is given by the Court of Cassation (the highest French court) in a judgment of 17 December 2014 (No. 13-25.134). It sets out the very strict conditions for alleging an 'abuse of majority'.

In short, a GM decision can only be annulled for abuse of majority if it is contrary to the collective interest of the co-owners or if it was taken solely to favour the personal interests of the majority at the expense of the minority. Explanations follow.

The facts: a story that happens every day

Mr Y, owner of a unit in a co-ownership in Perpignan, wishes to carry out renovation works in his flat. He seeks the approval of the general meeting of co-owners. In March 2010, the GM refuses his request. Mr Y challenges this refusal before the Tribunal de Grande Instance (TGI) of Perpignan. He alleges an 'abuse of majority': according to him, the other co-owners voted against his project for personal reasons, without valid grounds.

The TGI rules in his favour: it annuls resolution No. 7 (the one refusing the works) and orders the co-owners' association to pay him damages. But the association appeals. The Court of Appeal (CA) of Montpellier upholds the judgment, finding that the refusal was abusive. The association then appeals to the Court of Cassation.

The Court of Cassation quashes the Court of Appeal's decision. It finds that the lower courts did not demonstrate how the GM's decision was contrary to the collective interest or taken solely to favour the majority. They simply substituted their own assessment for that of the GM, which is not sufficient. The case is remitted to another Court of Appeal.

The court's reasoning — dissected

The Court of Cassation reiterates the principle: a GM decision may be annulled for abuse of majority, but only if two cumulative conditions are met. First, the decision must be contrary to the collective interests of the co-owners (the interest of the co-ownership as a whole). Second, it must have been taken solely to favour the personal interests of the majority co-owners at the expense of the minority.

These conditions derive from the Law of 10 July 1965 on co-ownership (Article 42, which allows a decision to be challenged) and Article 1240 of the Civil Code (which punishes abuse of rights). The Court of Cassation clarifies that it is not enough for a decision to seem unfair or clumsy: an intention to harm or a clear breach of equality must be proven.

In this case, the Court of Appeal had merely noted that the refusal of works was 'abusive' without explaining how it harmed the collective interest or served personal interests. It therefore violated the law. Note, however: the Court of Cassation does not say that the refusal was justified; it says that the judges did not properly reason their decision. This is a question of proof.

What few people know is that the burden of proof (who must prove the abuse) lies with the co-owner challenging the decision. He must demonstrate, through specific evidence, that the majority acted disloyally. undefined, I have seen cases where minority co-owners confuse simple disagreement with abuse. The line is fine.

What this means for you — practically

This decision has important practical implications, depending on your profile.

If you are a minority co-owner: You cannot challenge a decision simply because it disadvantages you. You must prove that it harms the interest of all co-owners (for example, refusing energy-saving works that would increase the value of the building) or that it solely benefits certain individuals (e.g., authorising structural works that benefit only one unit).

If you are a majority co-owner: You are protected against abusive challenges. But be careful: if you systematically vote against a minority owner's requests without valid reason, you risk an abuse finding. Concrete example: in Perpignan, a co-owner asks to install solar panels. The GM refuses because it would 'disfigure the facade'. If the co-ownership has no by-law prohibiting panels, this refusal may be abusive if not justified by a collective interest (e.g., listed building status).

If you are a buyer: Before purchasing, check the minutes of GMs for the last three years. If a co-owner has suffered systematic refusals, this may indicate a conflictual atmosphere and risk of litigation.

In short, this decision reminds us that the general meeting has broad decision-making power, but not unlimited. The judge cannot substitute his own view for that of the GM: he only reviews clear abuses.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Record voting reasons in the minutes: During the GM, have the precise reasons for each contested decision recorded in the minutes. This serves as evidence in case of a challenge. Example: 'refused because the works would affect the building's solidity' rather than 'refused as unnecessary'.
• Consult a lawyer before voting: If a resolution is sensitive (works altering common parts, antenna authorisation, etc.), seek legal advice beforehand. This can avoid subsequent litigation.
• Propose mediation: Before going to court, try mediation (cost around €200-300). Many conflicts are resolved amicably, especially if the dispute concerns a refusal of minor works.
• Check the co-ownership by-laws: They often contain specific clauses (prohibition of certain works, majority requirements). Ignoring them can lead to abusive decisions.

Besoin d'un conseil personnalisé ? Contactez Maître Zakine — première consultation 30 min à 45€.

Further reading: related case law and developments

The Court of Cassation has reaffirmed this principle in several subsequent judgments. For example, in a judgment of 9 June 2016 (No. 15-17.911), it held that a refusal of accessibility works for disabled persons may constitute an abuse of majority if no collective interest justifies it. Conversely, in a judgment of 4 February 2016 (No. 14-29.065), it upheld a refusal to install air conditioning on the grounds that the unit harmed the aesthetics of a listed building.

The trend of the courts is clear: the judge should not interfere in the management of the co-ownership, except in cases of manifest abuse. This means that majority co-owners have a wide margin of discretion, but they must document their decisions. Looking ahead, we can expect judges to be even more demanding on proof of abuse, especially with the rise of 'green' co-ownerships where energy-saving works are often a source of conflict.

Checklist before taking action

FAQ: Practical questions on abuse of majority

1. Can I annul a GM decision if I disagree?
No, mere disagreement is not enough. You must prove that the decision is contrary to the collective interest or taken to harm a minority owner.

2. What is the deadline to challenge a GM decision?
You have two months from notification of the minutes to take the matter to court. After this deadline, the decision becomes final.

3. How much does a court action cost?
Lawyer's fees range from €1,500 to €5,000 depending on complexity. Court costs (bailiff, expert) may be added. Mediation costs around €200-300.

4. What should I do if I am a victim of abuse of majority?
Gather evidence (minutes, correspondence, witness statements). Consult a lawyer specialised in property law. Consider mediation first before going to trial.

5. Can the managing agent be held liable?
Yes, if the managing agent misinformed the co-owners or failed to comply with convening rules, he may be liable. However, abuse of majority is attributable to the co-owners, not the managing agent.

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