Co-ownership: Can a co-ownership representative receive more than 3 voting proxies?

Imagine you own a flat in a 1970s residence in Mont-de-Marsan, near the Midouze. You receive the notice for the annual general meeting of your co-ownership. Among the items on the agenda: urgent roof works for €85,000, financed by an increase in service charges. You cannot attend, so you give your voting power (proxy) to your upstairs neighbour, who already represents his parents, co-owners of his unit. But here's the thing: how many proxies can he accept? Three? Five? And what if this tips the vote?

This question is not theoretical. It arises in hundreds of co-ownerships in the Landes region, from Dax to Mont-de-Marsan, where co-ownerships (situations where several people jointly own the same property) are common, particularly in families or group investments. The answer directly influences the validity of decisions taken at meetings, and therefore your wallet.

The Court of Cassation, in a judgment of 1 July 2009, provided essential clarification on this precise point. It distinguished two roles: that of common representative (legal representative of a co-ownership) and that of a simple co-owner receiving proxies. But what exactly does this change for your decision-making power and the stability of your co-ownership?

The facts: a story as it happens every day

The case begins in a medium-sized co-ownership, similar to those found in the town centre of Mont-de-Marsan or the residential districts of Dax. Several co-owners are in co-ownership: siblings who inherited a flat, or partners who invested together. One of them, let's call him Mr Martin, is designated as common representative (legal representative) of the co-ownership that owns a unit. This means he votes on behalf of all co-owners at general meetings.

During a crucial general meeting, concerning important works, Mr Martin attends with his representation mandate for the co-ownership. But four other co-owners, absent, have also given him their individual voting power (proxy). He therefore votes with five voices: that of the co-ownership he represents, plus four proxies. The resolution passes narrowly.

Another co-owner, Mrs Dubois, immediately challenges the validity of the vote. She argues that the law of 10 July 1965, article 22, limits to three the number of proxies that the same co-owner can receive. According to her, Mr Martin exceeded this limit by combining his co-ownership mandate and four proxies. The case goes to court, going through several levels of jurisdiction, with twists and turns on the interpretation of the limit. The stakes are concrete: if the vote is invalidated, the approved works could be cancelled, creating uncertainty and tensions in the building.

The court's reasoning — dissected

The magistrates of the Court of Cassation analysed the situation with precision. The legal basis is article 22 of the law of 10 July 1965, which states: "Any co-owner may be represented by another co-owner. No one may receive more than three mandates." This rule aims to prevent a single co-owner from concentrating too much voting power, which could distort the democracy of the co-ownership.

But the court made a crucial distinction. It considered that the common representative of a co-ownership does not act as a simple co-owner receiving proxies. He exercises a legal mandate (mandatory representation of the co-ownership) arising from the status of the co-ownership itself. In other words, representing a co-ownership is a specific role, provided for by law, distinct from collecting voting powers from other independent co-owners.

In its reasoning, the court therefore separated two counters: on the one hand, the representation mandate of the co-ownership (which is not a proxy within the meaning of article 22), and on the other hand, the voting proxies received from other co-owners. The limit of three applies only to the latter. Thus, Mr Martin, as common representative, could receive up to three additional proxies, without his co-ownership mandate counting towards this limit. In this case, with four proxies, he exceeded the limit, making the vote irregular.

What few people know is that this decision confirms prior case law and clarifies a grey area. It avoids penalising co-ownerships, which are common situations, while preserving the spirit of the law against excessive concentration of votes. The parties' arguments were clear: Mrs Dubois defended a strict reading of the limit, while Mr Martin pleaded for a flexible interpretation taking into account the reality of co-ownerships. The court found a balance by distinguishing the roles.

What this changes for you — concretely

If you are a co-owner, this decision has direct implications on your influence at general meetings. Let's take realistic numerical examples. Suppose your co-ownership in Dax has 100 thousandths (shares of ownership) in total. You hold 10 thousandths, and you are common representative of a co-ownership that owns 15. You can receive up to three proxies from other co-owners. If each proxy represents on average 5 thousandths, you will thus vote for 15 (co-ownership) + 10 (you) + 15 (3 proxies) = 40 thousandths, i.e., 40% of the votes. Before this decision, some thought that your co-ownership mandate counted as a proxy, limiting your capacity to only two additional proxies.

For landlord owners, this means that if you rent out your flat and are in co-ownership with a partner, your representative can carry more weight in votes, for example to approve works that protect your investment. For tenants, indirectly, this affects decisions on charges or improvements to the building. For purchasers, check the minutes of meetings: if votes were taken with excessive proxies, they could be challenged, creating legal uncertainty.

undefined, I have encountered cases where co-ownerships in the Landes region have seen resolutions cancelled because co-ownership representatives had accepted too many proxies, thinking their main mandate did not count. The consequences? Delays of several months, legal costs, and tensions between neighbours. If you are in this situation, you must count carefully: co-ownership mandate = 1 legal role; proxies received = maximum 3. Exceeding this risks invalidating decisions, with appeal periods of up to two years and significant amounts at stake (works from €50,000 to €200,000 in buildings in the Landes region).

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Check proxies before each meeting: if you are representative of a co-ownership, explicitly list your mandate and the proxies received, not exceeding three proxies. Use a table to tally the thousandths.
• Clearly inform other co-owners: when sending notices, remind them of the rule: "Any co-owner may give power to another, but no one may receive more than three mandates, except to represent a co-ownership." This avoids misunderstandings.
• Consult the managing agent or a lawyer in case of doubt: before the meeting, if the distribution of votes seems complex, ask for written advice. One hour of consultation can prevent years of proceedings.
• Document everything in writing: keep the co-ownership representation mandates and signed proxies, with dates and thousandths. In case of challenge, these proofs are essential.

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

Deep dive: related case law and developments

This decision fits into a trend of courts clarifying voting rules in co-ownership. Before 2009, some courts of appeal had divergent interpretations: some counted the co-ownership mandate in the limit of three, others did not. The Court of Cassation, with this judgment, unified the case law in favour of the distinction legal role/proxies.

A prior decision, Court of Cassation, 3rd civ., 6 July 2005, had already addressed the question of mandates in co-ownership, but without specifically ruling on the case of co-ownerships. The 2009 judgment goes further by explicating this distinction. Since then, courts generally follow this line, as evidenced by recent judgments in the jurisdictions of Mont-de-Marsan and Dax, where magistrates apply this rule to validate or invalidate votes.

For the future, this means greater legal certainty for co-ownerships with co-ownerships. The trend is towards strict but nuanced application: respecting the limit of three proxies, while recognising the specificities of legal mandates. This could influence other aspects, such as the representation of legal entities (SCI, companies).

In practice: what to do

Here is a numbered checklist to act with full knowledge:

1. If you are representative of a co-ownership: identify your legal mandate; accept at most three proxies from other co-owners; total the thousandths before voting.
2. If you give your power: check that the recipient does not already have three proxies (apart from their co-ownership mandate); specify your voting instructions in writing.
3. If you challenge a vote: act quickly, ideally at the meeting or within two months of receiving the minutes; gather evidence (copies of proxies).
4. For the managing agent: when preparing the meeting, check proxies and alert in case of excess; include this rule in the co-ownership regulations if possible.

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 →