Reference Decision: cc • No. 14-25.510 • 2015-11-19 • View the decision →
Imagine you own a flat in a residence in Mougins, with three separate buildings surrounding a shared swimming pool. Your home is in building A, which is perfectly maintained. But then the managing agent announces refurbishment works for building C, which is ageing, and asks for your share. You think: "Why should I pay for a building where I don't live?" This question is asked by thousands of co-owners every year on the French Riviera.
In complex co-ownerships in Antibes or Grasse, where property complexes may include several buildings with shared facilities, the distribution of charges often becomes a headache. Owners in the new building consider it unfair to finance the maintenance of the old one, while those in the old building argue for collective solidarity. Who is right?
The Court of Cassation, in a judgment dated 19 November 2015, provided a clear answer that is now authoritative. It recalls a fundamental principle: unless an exception is provided in the co-ownership regulations, maintenance and conservation charges concern the entire property and must be borne by all co-owners, regardless of which building their unit is located in. But what exactly does this change for your wallet?
The Facts: A Story That Happens Every Day
The case begins in a co-ownership in the Paris region, but it could just as easily have taken place in Antibes or Mougins. Madame Martin (pseudonym) owns several units in a property complex consisting of three separate buildings. These buildings share certain common facilities such as roadways, green spaces, and a technical room, but each has its own common parts (hall, stairs, lift).
The co-owners' association decides to undertake conservation works on one of the buildings, building B, which shows signs of wear and tear. The estimate amounts to €120,000. At the general meeting, a majority of co-owners votes to carry out the works and finance them by all co-owners, in proportion to their thousandths of general common parts.
Madame Martin, whose units are all located in building A (the newest and well-maintained), strongly opposes this decision. She considers it unfair to have to contribute to financing works that do not concern her building. "My thousandths represent 86/1000ths of the general common parts, but I never use building B!", she argues. She refuses to pay her share, which amounts to approximately €10,320 (86/1000 × 120,000).
The association then initiates legal proceedings to recover this amount. At first instance, the court rules in favour of Madame Martin, considering that the charges should be distributed by building since the co-owners of each building are the main beneficiaries of the works. But the association appeals, and the court of appeal reverses the decision. Madame Martin does not give up and files an appeal to the Court of Cassation. The legal twist reaches its climax when France's highest civil court must settle this dispute opposing collective solidarity and individual justice.
The Court's Reasoning — Analysed
The Court of Cassation, in its judgment of 19 November 2015, analysed the situation with exemplary legal rigour. The judges relied on Article 10 of the Law of 10 July 1965, the founding text of co-ownership law, which states that "charges give rise to contribution from all co-owners". But be careful: this article also specifies that the distribution can be modified by the co-ownership regulations.
The judges' reasoning revolves around two key questions. First, do the co-ownership regulations create "special common parts" (i.e., common parts reserved for the exclusive use of co-owners of a particular building)? Second, do they provide for a specific distribution of charges by building?
In this case, the Court found that the co-ownership regulations did not create any special common parts. In other words, all common parts were intended for the use of all co-owners, even if some facilities were physically located in one building rather than another. What few people know is that the notion of "special common parts" is strictly regulated: it must be expressly provided for in the regulations and concern elements actually reserved for the exclusive use of a determined group of co-owners.
The Court then examined whether the regulations provided for a distribution of charges by building. Again, the answer was negative. The regulations merely provided for the classic distribution in proportion to the thousandths of general common parts. In the absence of contrary provisions, the principle of collective solidarity therefore prevails. The judges thus confirmed the court of appeal's decision: Madame Martin indeed had to contribute to financing the works on building B, even though her units were located in building A.
This reasoning constitutes a confirmation of prior case law rather than an evolution. The Court thus recalls a fundamental principle: in co-ownership, you are jointly liable with others, unless the regulations provide otherwise. A reversal would have consisted in admitting a distribution by building even in the absence of a specific clause, but the judges chose to maintain legal certainty by adhering to the letter of the regulations.
What This Changes for You — Concretely
This decision has concrete implications for all real estate actors, whether you are a landlord, tenant, purchaser, or simply a co-owner. Understanding these consequences can help you avoid unpleasant surprises and costly disputes.
If you are a landlord in a co-ownership with multiple buildings, as is often found in Antibes with its large residences, you must carefully check your co-ownership regulations. If they do not provide for distribution by building, you will have to contribute to all maintenance and conservation works, even those concerning buildings where you do not own a unit. Concretely, if your co-ownership of 50 units spread across 3 buildings must carry out works of €300,000 on a single building, and you hold 20/1000ths, you will have to pay €6,000, even if your flat is in another building.
For tenants, the impact is indirect but real. Co-ownership charges are passed on in service charges according to precise rules. If your landlord has to bear a significant share of works on other buildings, this could translate into an increase in your charges. undefined, I have encountered cases where tenants in Antibes saw their charges increase by 15% following major works on a neighbouring building, their landlord having had to assume his share.
Purchasers must be particularly vigilant. Before buying in a co-ownership with multiple buildings, examine not only the condition of the building containing your future home, but also that of the other buildings. A dilapidated building could lead to major works for which you will have to bear a share. Always request the latest general meeting minutes and the technical diagnostic report.
Finally, for existing co-owners, this decision reinforces the importance of prevention. If you consider it unfair to contribute to works on other buildings, the only legal solution is to amend the co-ownership regulations to provide for a different distribution. But be careful: this amendment requires unanimity or a qualified majority depending on the case, which is never easy to obtain.
Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute
- Read your co-ownership regulations before buying: Don't just rely on the technical diagnostic. Specifically check if "special common parts" are created and if a distribution of charges by building is provided for. Seek professional assistance if necessary.
- Actively participate in general meetings: Decisions concerning works and their financing are made there. By being present and voting, you can influence decisions rather than suffer them. Ask questions about the use of funds and the planned distribution.
- Anticipate works by creating a works fund: Rather than waiting for an emergency, propose at the meeting the establishment of a works fund regularly funded. This allows spreading expenses over time and avoiding massive calls for funds that crystallise conflicts.
- Document all exchanges with the managing agent: In case of disagreement on the distribution of charges, carefully keep letters, emails, and minutes. These documents will be essential if a dispute were to end up in court.
Besoin d'un conseil personnalisé ? Contactez Maître Zakine — première consultation 30 min à 45€.
In-Depth Analysis: Related Case Law and Developments
The 2015 judgment fits into consistent case law from the Court of Cassation on this issue. Already in 1997 (judgment No. 95-11.902), the Court had ruled that "in a co-ownership comprising several buildings, maintenance and conservation charges for special common parts can only be distributed among the co-owners of those buildings". The 2015 decision clarifies this case law by recalling that the existence of special common parts must be expressly provided for in the regulations.
More recently, in 2019, the Court of Cassation (judgment No. 18-13.360) confirmed this approach by ruling that in the absence of a specific clause, a co-owner had to contribute to financing the lift in another building, even if they never used it. This jurisprudential trend shows that judges favour legal certainty and strict respect for the co-ownership regulations.
For the future, this case law means that drafters of co-ownership regulations must be increasingly precise. In new property complexes on the French Riviera, there is indeed a trend towards creating "sub-associations" by building, with clearly identified special common parts and specific distribution rules. This evolution responds to a growing demand for fairness and transparency from co-owners.
In Practice: What to Do
In light of this case law, here is what to do concretely according to your situation:
1. If you are considering buying in a co-ownership with multiple buildings: Demand a copy of the co-ownership regulations and have it analysed by a professional. Specifically check the articles concerning common parts and the distribution of charges. Calculate your potential exposure to works on other buildings.
2. If you are already a co-owner and works are planned on another building: Participate in the general meeting where the decision will be made. Request detailed justifications on the necessity of the works and their financing. If you consider the distribution unfair, propose an amendment to the regulations, but know that this will take time.
3. If you receive a call for funds for works on another building: Do not refuse to pay without legal advice. A refusal to pay exposes you to legal proceedings, surcharges, and possibly seizure. First consult a specialised lawyer to assess your chances of challenging the decision.
4. If you wish to amend your co-ownership regulations: First gather a group of co-owners sharing your point of view. Consult a lawyer to draft a precise amendment proposal. Prepare for a long process often requiring unanimity or an enhanced majority.
Do you find yourself 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 →
