Aller au contenu principal
Conservatory Acts in Indivision: How Far Can a Single Co-owner Go?
Droit-immobilier

Conservatory Acts in Indivision: How Far Can a Single Co-owner Go?

📅 Décision du 25 January 1983⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 8 vues📖 7 min de lecture

Article 815-2 of the French Civil Code allows a co-owner to take conservatory measures alone, but this 1983 decision sets limits: an act that goes to the substance of the law (such as an action to remove beams from a non-party wall) is not conservatory. Discover the criteria for acting without risk.

Leading Decision: French Cour de cassation • No. 80-15.132 • 25 January 1983 • View decision →

You own a house in Carpentras, held in indivision with your brother following an inheritance. A neighbour, without permission, drives beams into your party wall to extend his barn. You want to react quickly, but your brother is unreachable. What can you do? Does the law allow you to act alone?

This is precisely the question the French Cour de cassation had to decide in 1983. Article 815-2 of the French Civil Code allows any co-owner to take alone the "measures necessary for the preservation of the jointly owned property." But this concept is more restrictive than it appears.

This decision sets a clear limit: a legal action that challenges a property right (such as the removal of beams from a non-party wall) is not a conservatory act, unless there is imminent peril. Deciphering the issue.

The Facts: A Story as Common as Any

Mr. Louis is a co-owner of a building in Avignon, with a wall separating his property from that of his neighbour, Mr. Z. This wall is partly private (belonging exclusively to the indivision) and partly party (shared between the two properties). Without agreement, Mr. Z drives beams into the private wall to support a construction and raises the party wall to support his roof.

Mr. Louis, alone, without the consent of the other co-owners, sues Mr. Z in court to obtain the removal of the beams and the demolition of the raising. He invokes Article 815-2 of the French Civil Code, arguing that this is a conservatory measure necessary to protect the jointly owned property.

The Court of Appeal of Nîmes declares his action inadmissible: a co-owner cannot act alone for this type of claim. Mr. Louis appeals to the Cour de cassation. The Cour de cassation dismisses his appeal and confirms the inadmissibility. It holds that the action did not aim to remove the property from imminent peril — it was not shown that Mr. Z risked acquiring a right of support by expropriation-indemnisation-terrain" class="internal-link" title="Servitudes d'urbanisme et expropriation">thirty-year prescription, nor that the works compromised the building's stability. Consequently, this action exceeds the limits of conservatory acts.

The Court's Reasoning — Analysed

The Cour de cassation relies on Article 815-2 of the French Civil Code, which provides: "The measures necessary for the preservation of the jointly owned property may be taken by any co-owner." But it clarifies the meaning of this provision: these measures are physical or legal acts aimed at removing the jointly owned property from imminent peril without seriously compromising the rights of the co-owners.

In other words, two cumulative conditions must be met:

  • An imminent peril (immediate danger to the property).
  • An act that does not affect the rights of the other co-owners.

In this case, Mr. Louis's claim — removal of beams and demolition of the raising — did not meet these criteria. On the one hand, no imminent peril was established: the neighbour's works did not threaten the building's stability, and there was no risk of acquisitive prescription (usucapion) of the right of support. On the other hand, the legal action itself was a challenge to the neighbour's property right, which goes beyond mere preservation.

The Court therefore rejects Mr. Louis's argument that his action was conservatory. It confirms the position of the Court of Appeal: a single co-owner cannot bring an action that, by its nature, goes to the substance of the law (property, easement) without the consent of the others. This is not a reversal but a confirmation of prior case law.

What few people know is that this decision clearly distinguishes conservatory acts (e.g., urgently repairing a water leak) from administrative or dispositive acts (e.g., selling the property or bringing a possessory action). A single co-owner may do the former, but not the latter.

However, beware: if the peril is real and imminent (e.g., a wall threatening to collapse), a legal action to stop the danger could be considered conservatory. But in this case, simply driving beams without urgency is not enough.

What This Means for You — Practically

Co-owners: If you are in indivision and a neighbour encroaches on the property, do not rush to court alone. You must first obtain the agreement of all co-owners, or failing that, obtain permission from a judge. Otherwise, your action will be declared inadmissible, like Mr. Louis. Concrete example: in Cavaillon, a co-owner tried alone to have a fence built by a neighbour on the jointly owned plot demolished. The court dismissed her claim for lack of agreement from the other heirs.

Tenants: You are not directly concerned by indivision, but if your landlord is in indivision, note that a single co-owner cannot give you notice or modify the lease without the consent of the others (except in an emergency).

Buyers: Before buying a property held in indivision, check that all co-owners consent to the sale. A single co-owner cannot sell alone, except in very limited cases (Art. 815-5 of the French Civil Code).

Co-owners in condominiums: Indivision is different from condominium ownership, but the principle is similar: important acts require majority consent. If a condominium owner acts alone for works affecting common parts, the decision can be challenged.

undefined, I have come across cases where a co-owner had emergency works carried out (roof repair after a storm) without consulting the others. That was conservatory and therefore valid. But when it comes to a legal action against a third party, the threshold is higher.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

  • Obtain written consent from all co-owners before any legal action. Even if you consider the action urgent, a simple email or recorded delivery letter may suffice. If there is a refusal, apply to the judge for authorisation.
  • In a genuine emergency (risk of collapse, fire, etc.), document the peril with photos, bailiff's reports, or expert reports. This will allow you to justify a conservatory action.
  • Do not confuse a conservatory act with an administrative act. A conservatory act aims to avoid immediate damage (repairing a leak). An administrative act manages the property (leasing). A dispositive act affects the assets (sale). Only the first can be done alone.
  • Consult a lawyer before acting alone. A 30-minute legal consultation can save you time and money in an inadmissible procedure.

This 1983 decision is part of a consistent line: the Cour de cassation has always interpreted Article 815-2 strictly. For example, in a judgment of 13 December 1994 (No. 92-21.567), it held that a co-owner could not alone bring a boundary action (property delimitation), because it affects property rights.

Conversely, in a decision of 8 February 2005 (No. 02-18.182), the Court held that a co-owner could alone have works carried out to bring a building into compliance with safety standards, because there was imminent peril (fire risk).

The trend is therefore clear: judges are strict on the notion of "imminent peril." If you want to act alone, you must demonstrate a concrete and immediate danger. In the future, case law may evolve with the development of forced indivision (complex inheritances), but for now, the rule remains the same.

Checklist Before Acting

  • Am I alone or in indivision? Check the title deed and inheritance document.
  • Is the act I want to take conservatory? Ask yourself: is there an imminent peril? Does the act affect the rights of others?
  • Do I have the consent of the other co-owners? If yes, formalise it in writing. If no, can I obtain a judge's authorisation?
  • What is the urgency? If the property is in danger (e.g., gas leak), act quickly and document it. Otherwise, take time to consult.
  • Have I consulted a lawyer? Before any legal action, professional advice is essential.

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

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 →

📌 Does this apply to your situation? Maître Cécile Zakine, French real estate lawyer, practises throughout France.
→ Avocat droit du travail  |  → Browse all our legal articles

Questions fréquentes

Puis-je agir seul en justice pour faire cesser un empiètement sur un bien indivis ?

Non, pas sans l'accord des autres indivisaires, sauf s'il y a péril imminent. Dans ce cas, il faut démontrer un danger concret et immédiat (ex: risque d'effondrement).

Qu'est-ce qu'un acte conservatoire en indivision ?

Un acte nécessaire pour soustraire le bien à un péril imminent, sans compromettre les droits des autres indivisaires. Exemple : réparer une fuite d'eau urgente.

Que faire si un autre indivisaire refuse d'agir alors que le bien est en danger ?

Vous pouvez saisir le juge des référés pour obtenir l'autorisation d'agir seul. Mais il faut prouver l'urgence et le péril imminent.

Quels sont les risques si j'agis seul sans accord ?

Votre action en justice sera déclarée irrecevable, comme dans l'arrêt de 1983. Vous perdrez du temps et de l'argent.

Puis-je vendre un bien indivis sans l'accord des autres ?

Non, la vente est un acte de disposition qui nécessite l'accord unanime des indivisaires, sauf autorisation judiciaire dans certains cas (art. 815-5).

Informations juridiques

  • Numéro: 80-15.132
  • Juridiction: Cour de cassation
  • Date de décision: 25 janvier 1983

Mots-clés

indivisionacte conservatoirearticle 815-2indivisaire seulpéril imminentjurisprudence 1983

Cas d'usage pratiques

1

Co-owner in Carpentras facing encroachment by neighbour

Mr. Dupont, co-owner of a house in Carpentras, finds that his neighbour has built a wall on his plot without authorisation. He wants to act alone.

Application pratique:

Mr. Dupont cannot bring a demolition action alone. He must first obtain the consent of his sister (co-owner) or, failing that, apply to the judge for authorisation. If there is an emergency (e.g., unstable wall), he may act alone but must prove it.

2

Tenant of a jointly owned property in Cavaillon

Mrs. Martin rents a flat in Cavaillon. The landlord is an indivision of three heirs. One of them wants to give her notice alone.

Application pratique:

A notice given by a single co-owner is void because it is an administrative act requiring the consent of all. Mrs. Martin can challenge the notice. In practice, require a notice signed by all co-owners.

3

Buyer of a jointly owned plot in Avignon

Mr. Blanc wants to buy a plot in Avignon. The seller is a single co-owner, the others being in disagreement.

Application pratique:

The sale cannot proceed without the consent of all co-owners. Mr. Blanc must require a deed of sale signed by all, or failing that, a judicial authorisation. Otherwise, he risks annulment of the sale.

Maître Cécile Zakine

À propos de l'auteur

Maître Cécile Zakine — Avocate au Barreau des Alpes-Maritimes, Docteur en Droit. Chaque article de ce magazine est rédigé à partir de l'analyse d'une décision de jurisprudence réelle, commentée et mise en perspective par les équipes de Maître Zakine.

Prendre rendez-vous →

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.

Articles similaires en Droit-immobilier

Voir tout →

Servitude de passage et tierce opposition : protéger son droit d'accès en copropriété

Un copropriétaire peut-il s'opposer à la suppression d'une servitude de passage qui profite à son lot, même si le syndicat accepte la fin de l'enclave ? La Cour de cassation répond oui, reconnaissant un intérêt distinct pour agir en tierce opposition.

23 juil. 2026Lire →

Enclave et servitude : quand le droit du travail ne crée pas de passage forcé

La Cour de cassation rappelle que l'état d'enclave d'un fonds ne peut résulter des obligations réglementaires imposées aux entreprises en matière d'issues et dégagements. Ainsi, un propriétaire ne peut exiger un passage sur le fonds voisin au seul motif que son bâtiment doit respecter des normes de sécurité incendie.

23 juil. 2026Lire →

Lorsque, faute de convention écrite ou dans le silence, le préavis s'impose

Lorsque, faute de convention écrite ou dans le silence de cette convention, les parties à un contrat de transport public routier de marchandises n'ont pas stipulé une durée de préavis de rupture, cette durée est fixée par un contrat-type approuvé par décret pris en application de l'article L. 1432-4 du code des transports. Les dispositions de l'article L. 442-6, I, 5°, devenu L. 442-1, II, du code de commerce ne trouvent alors pas à s'appliquer. Il en va de même lorsque la convention écrite renvoie expressément à la clause du contrat-type fixant une telle durée. Lorsque les parties ont conclu un contrat écrit stipulant la durée du préavis de rupture, les dispositions de l'article L. 442-1, II, du code de commerce sont applicables. Dans cette hypothèse, l'auteur de la rupture qui a consenti à son partenaire un délai de préavis au moins égal à celui prévu au contrat-type dans sa version en vigueur à la date de la notification de la rupture, ne saurait voir sa responsabilité engagée sur le fondement de ce texte

23 juil. 2026Lire →

Explorez plus d'analyses juridiques en droit droit-immobilier

Tous les articles Droit-immobilier
★★★★★4.9/5 — Avis Google

Maître Zakine, Doctor of Law

Phone and video consultations available — Fast appointments

Book an appointment
First consultation 30 minutes — €45

🔒 Confidentiel • Sans engagement • Réponse rapide