Acquiescence to Judgment: When Silence on Appeal Deprives You of a Defence

Imagine: you are the owner of a flat in Barentin, let to a tenant who has not paid rent for six months. You commence eviction proceedings. The court rules in your favour. But your tenant appeals. During the appeal, you do nothing. Then, before the Court of Cassation, you realise that the tenant actually accepted the judgment at first instance. Too late? The decision of 10 November 1999 (No. 97-18.987) answers in the affirmative: acquiescence to a judgment, if not invoked before the Court of Appeal, can no longer be raised before the Court of Cassation. A procedural rule that may seem technical, but has very real consequences.

But what exactly does this change? For a landlord in Fécamp who wins a case against a neighbour for nuisance, if the neighbour acquiesces (accepts) the judgment, that ends the dispute. But if the neighbour appeals, and you forget to tell the Court of Appeal that he has already accepted the judgment, you lose that argument. The Court of Cassation will not consider it.

undefined, I have encountered cases where litigants, through ignorance of this rule, have found themselves deprived of a decisive argument. This judgment is therefore a reminder: in procedure, every step counts, and you must act at the right time.

The Facts: An Everyday Story

Mr and Mrs Y... are owners of a plot of land in Lille, adjacent to that of Mr and Mrs X... One day, they notice that their neighbours have encroached onto their property. They bring an action for reinstatement (to recover their land). But they purchased this land from a HLM company Crédit immobilier de Lille et des pays du Nord. They therefore call their seller as a warrantor, so that the company will protect them in case they lose the case.

The Tribunal de grande instance rules in their favour: Mr and Mrs X... must vacate the land. But the latter do not agree: they appeal. During the appeal, Mr and Mrs Y... do not raise the fact that their opponents had acquiesced to the first-instance judgment. The case reaches the Court of Cassation. There, Mr and Mrs X... (defendants in the appeal) attempt to invoke acquiescence to defeat the appeal. But the Court of Cassation declares them inadmissible: since they did not rely on it before the Court of Appeal, they can no longer do so now.

In other words, Mr and Mrs X... lost an opportunity to end the dispute earlier. The Court of Cassation refers the case to another Court of Appeal for a fresh decision. A procedure that could have been avoided.

The Reasoning of the Court — Analysed

The High Court relies on a fundamental principle of civil procedure: the Court of Cassation is not a third level of jurisdiction. It does not judge facts, but verifies that the law has been correctly applied. However, invoking acquiescence to a judgment is raising a new fact that was not discussed before the trial judges.

Article 408 of the Code of Civil Procedure (which defines acquiescence) provides that acquiescence to a judgment entails submission to its terms. But for it to have effect in cassation, the party relying on it must have invoked it before the Court of Appeal. Otherwise, it is a new ground, mixed fact and law, and inadmissible.

What few people know is that this rule stems from the requirement of concentration of grounds: on appeal, you must present all your arguments. If you keep one for cassation, it will be rejected. The decision confirms consistent case law: you cannot hold back your ammunition.

In short, the Court of Cassation says: you had the opportunity to say on appeal that your opponent had accepted the judgment. If you did not, you cannot blame the Court of Cassation. It is a matter of procedural fairness and good administration of justice.

What This Means for You — Practically

For a landlord in Fécamp who obtains a repossession order, if the tenant appeals but has already accepted the judgment, you must absolutely raise this before the Court of Appeal. Otherwise, you lose that argument and the proceedings will drag on. Imagine a rent of €800 per month: six months of additional proceedings means €4,800 lost.

For a property buyer who has obtained rescission of a sale for latent defect, if the seller acquiesces, you must say so on appeal. Otherwise, you risk having to repay the price without recovering your deposit.

For a co-owner contesting a general meeting, if the management company acquiesces to your claim, do not delay in raising it before the Court of Appeal. Example: in Rouen, a co-owner won at first instance the annulment of a works decision. The management company appealed but had not acquiesced. The co-owner did not raise acquiescence on appeal: the Court of Cassation dismissed his appeal. He had to repay the legal costs, i.e. €3,000.

If you are in this situation, you must: as soon as you become aware of an acquiescence (in writing or by act), immediately bring it to the attention of the Court of Appeal. Time limit: before the close of the hearing.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Litigation

• Monitor your opponent's actions: as soon as he accepts the judgment (for example by voluntarily executing it), react. Keep all written evidence.
• Invoke acquiescence at the appeal stage: do not keep it for cassation. Mention it in your appeal submissions, even if you think it is obvious.
• Engage a lawyer lawyer: appeal procedure has strict rules. A professional will know when and how to raise this ground.
• Anticipate the end of the dispute: if you are in a position of strength, propose a settlement. Acquiescence can be a lever for negotiation.
• Check deadlines: acquiescence can be tacit. If your opponent pays the sums due without reservation, this may constitute acquiescence. Act quickly.

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

This decision is in line with consistent case law: the Court of Cassation is uncompromising on the concentration of grounds. One can cite the Cesareo decision of 2006 (Full Court, 7 July 2006) which requires parties to present all grounds from the first instance. Here, the principle is similar: acquiescence is a ground that must be raised on appeal.

Another decision, 2nd Civ., 13 September 2018, No. 17-20.824, held that acquiescence not invoked on appeal cannot be raised in cassation, even if it results from an act subsequent to the appeal judgment. The trend is therefore towards reinforcing inadmissibility.

What this means for the future: trial judges are becoming increasingly strict. Parties must be vigilant and leave nothing to chance. The appeal procedure is becoming an almost final filter for factual grounds.

Frequently Asked Questions

• What is acquiescence to a judgment? It is the acceptance of a court decision, either expressly (in writing) or tacitly (by executing the decision). It ends the dispute.
• Can I still invoke acquiescence if I did not do so on appeal? No, the Court of Cassation will declare you inadmissible. You must have raised it before the Court of Appeal.
• What are the time limits for acting? Acquiescence must be invoked before the close of the hearing on appeal. After that, it is too late.
• How to prove tacit acquiescence? By any means: payment of sums, execution of ordered works, absence of challenge. Keep the evidence.
• What if I discover acquiescence after the appeal judgment? You can try an appeal in cassation, but without guarantee. Better to act before.

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 →