Having noted that a co-owner

Reference decision: Cass. 3e civ., no. 17-16.693, 28 June 2018 • View the decision →

This decision sheds important light on your property law. Here's how it affects you.

The situation

Having noted that a co-owner had opposed the decision to abolish the caretaker's position, a court of appeal correctly held that voting in favour of certain resolutions adopted consecutively to that decision did not alter the nature of the vote on the contested resolution, and rightly deduced that the application to set aside that decision is admissible under Article 42, paragraph 2, of Law No. 65-567 of 10 July 1965.

What the law says

This decision confirms the fundamental principles of property law.

Points to remember

Strictly comply with legal time limits for appeals
Keep all your supporting documents (title deeds, deeds, correspondence)
Anticipate: preventive advice is always cheaper than litigation

For an analysis of your situation: 30-minute consultation at €45 with Maître Zakine.

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

Cas d'usage pratiques

Co-owner contests caretaker removal despite later approving replacement

You are a co-owner in a 20-unit block in Nice. At the AGM, you voted against abolishing the live-in caretaker position (an annual saving of €18,000). Weeks later, during an extraordinary meeting, you voted in favour of hiring a part-time cleaning service. The syndic now argues you have implicitly accepted the abolition.

Application pratique:

The Court of Cassation ruling confirms that voting for resolutions subsequent to a contested decision does not alter your initial opposing vote. You remain entitled to challenge the abolition under Article 42 of the 1965 Law, provided you bring an action before the judicial court within two months of receiving the AGM minutes. Gather your voting slip, the minutes, and any correspondence showing your opposition; then instruct a property litigation lawyer to issue proceedings promptly.

Absentee landlord challenges service charge hike after subsequent participation

You own three flats in a Parisian Haussmann building but missed the AGM that passed a €45,000 roof repair, increasing your annual charges by €3,200 per lot. Although you did not attend that meeting, you later cast in-favour votes on two unrelated resolutions in a follow-up meeting. The managing agent claims you have therefore ratified all earlier decisions.

Application pratique:

Based on the 28 June 2018 ruling, your subsequent votes do not amount to acceptance of earlier resolutions you missed. Absentee co-owners retain the right to contest within two months of notification of the minutes, regardless of later participation. You must send a formal letter of dispute to the syndic, then file a nullity action before the tribunal judiciaire, attaching proof of your absence and the date you received the minutes. Do not delay past the statutory deadline.

First-time buyer inherits right to annul a forced-heating decision

You just bought a flat in Lyon. Shortly after moving in, you discover the previous owner voted against a €28,000 collective heating system replacement at the last AGM — but then attended a later meeting and voted to approve the ancillary electrical upgrade. The syndic now insists the challenge right was waived, and you must pay your €7,000 share.

Application pratique:

The case law confirms that the previous owner's later vote does not extinguish their opposition to the heating decision. As a new owner, you step into the shoes of the seller and can pursue the annulment action they could have brought, provided it is still within the two‑month time limit from the original AGM notification. Immediately contact a property solicitor to verify the deadline and, if still viable, lodge an opposition with the tribunal judiciaire, citing this precedent. Keep the purchase deed and all AGM documents to prove the chain of entitlement.

Having noted that a co-owner

The situation

What the law says

Points to remember

Informations juridiques

Source

Mots-clés

Cas d'usage pratiques

Co-owner contests caretaker removal despite later approving replacement

Absentee landlord challenges service charge hike after subsequent participation

First-time buyer inherits right to annul a forced-heating decision

À propos de l'auteur

Consultez un avocat spécialisé près de chez vous

🎯 Sur le même sujet

Articles similaires en Immobilier

Annulation d'un compromis de vente à Juan-les-Pins : les recours

Garantie décennale construction Capbreton : vos recours avec un avocat

Dépôt de garantie non restitué à Fréjus : vos recours avec un avocat

Maître Zakine, Doctor of Law