Co-ownership: When the Common Parts of a Building Belong Only to Its Co-owners

Imagine you are the owner of an apartment in a residential complex in Saint-Paul-lès-Dax, composed of several distinct buildings. You pay your co-ownership charges every quarter, but you wonder: why are certain works on the entrance hall of your building billed only to the owners of your building, while other expenses concern the entire complex? This question, asked by thousands of co-owners in the Landes and throughout France, finds a clear answer in a decision of the Court of Cassation.

In groups of buildings, the distribution of common parts can create tensions. Some spaces are used by all residents—such as outdoor parking or access paths—while others serve only the occupants of a specific building—lifts, halls, roofs. But who truly owns the latter? Who should assume their maintenance and repairs?

The judgment of 19 November 2014 provides an essential clarification: when the co-ownership regulations clearly distinguish special common parts allocated to a building with particular tantièmes (ownership shares), only the co-owners of that building are the owners. The other co-owners of the complex have no rights over these spaces, even in the absence of a secondary association (specific management structure for the building). A decision that changes the game for daily management.

The Facts: A Story as It Happens Every Day

In a co-ownership in the Landes—similar to those found in Mimizan with their buildings scattered in the pine forest—several owners found themselves in conflict. Mr. Durand, owner of an apartment in building A, noted that the entrance hall of his building required urgent renovation works. The paint was peeling, the tiling was cracked, and the faulty lighting created a feeling of insecurity in the evening.

At the general meeting, the managing agent proposed voting on these works for an amount of €15,000. But here's the issue: some co-owners of buildings B and C firmly opposed it. "Why should we pay for a hall we never use?" they argued. "We have our own halls to maintain!" For their part, the owners of building A retorted that these spaces were part of the common parts of the entire co-ownership, and therefore everyone should contribute.

The disagreement escalated when the managing agent, caught in the crossfire, decided to postpone the works. Mr. Durand and his neighbours in building A then seized the court to assert their rights. They invoked the co-ownership regulations which, according to them, created an undivided ownership (ownership shared between several persons) over all the common parts, without distinction. The legal battle began, with significant financial stakes for each co-owner.

The Court's Reasoning—Analysed

The judges of the Court of Cassation analysed the situation with surgical precision. Their reasoning was articulated around a fundamental principle: the will of the parties as expressed in the co-ownership regulations. This document, often read too quickly during acquisition, is nevertheless the "bible" of life in co-ownership.

The court examined the regulations in question carefully. It found two distinct categories of common parts: on one hand, general common parts (used by all co-owners of all buildings), and on the other hand, special common parts (allocated for the exclusive use of the co-owners of a specific building). But what exactly does this change?

The determining element lay in the allocation of particular tantièmes (specific ownership percentages) to these special common parts. In clear terms, the regulations attributed different thousandths for the common parts of each building. This technical detail, often overlooked, was interpreted by the judges as creating a separate undivided ownership between only the co-owners of each building.

In other words, when you buy a lot in a co-ownership with this type of regulation, you become the owner of two distinct things: 1) your private lot (your apartment), 2) a share of the general common parts of the entire complex, AND 3) a share of the special common parts of your building only. The owners of the other buildings have strictly no ownership rights over the latter.

The court rejected the argument that the absence of a secondary association (distinct legal structure to manage the building) would imply a common ownership by all. "Undivided ownership can exist without a specific management structure", the judges specified. An important nuance that avoids creating heavy administrative structures while respecting the real distribution of ownership.

What This Changes for You—Concretely

This decision has immediate practical implications for all real estate actors. If you are a landlord owner in a co-ownership of this type in Saint-Paul-lès-Dax, you must now carefully check your regulations. Works on the special common parts of your building will be financed only by the co-owners of that building.

Take a concrete example in Mimizan: a complex of three buildings with a shared swimming pool (general common part) and distinct halls (special common parts). If the renovation of the swimming pool costs €30,000, all co-owners will contribute proportionally to their general tantièmes. But if the hall of building B requires €12,000 of works, only the 20 co-owners of building B will pay—an average of €600 per lot, instead of €200 if the charge were distributed over the 60 lots of the entire complex.

For tenants, this distinction can influence the amount of recoverable charges. Works on the special common parts of the building will be fully passed on in the charges, while those on the general common parts will be distributed among all tenants. A difference that can amount to hundreds of euros per year.

Purchasers must redouble their vigilance. Before buying, systematically request a detailed analysis of the co-ownership regulations. Clearly identify which special common parts are allocated to your future building, and which particular tantièmes are attributed to them. This precaution can avoid unpleasant surprises during the first vote on works.

undefined, I have encountered cases where co-owners discovered after years that they were paying for the maintenance of lifts they never used, or conversely, that they had to assume costly works on their roof alone. A prior analysis of the regulations allows anticipating these situations.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Read your co-ownership regulations before buying—Do not settle for the technical diagnosis. Ask your notary or a specialised solicitor to clearly explain the distribution of common parts and tantièmes. Identify the special common parts allocated to your building.
• Demand the creation of secondary associations if necessary—When the special common parts are significant (lifts, heating plants, complex roofs), propose at the general meeting the creation of a secondary association for your building. This structure will allow more transparent management and avoid conflicts with other buildings.
• Check the accounts separately by building—Insist that the managing agent establishes separate provisional accounts and calls for funds for the special common parts of each building. This accounting clarity prevents misunderstandings about the distribution of charges.
• Document any disagreement in writing—If you contest the distribution of an expense, do so by registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt before the general meeting. This written record will be essential in case of subsequent litigation.

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 consistent jurisprudential trend. Already in 2007, the Court of Cassation had affirmed in judgment No. 06-15.372 that "the special common parts of a building constitute a distinct undivided ownership". The 2014 decision reinforces and clarifies this orientation, particularly emphasising the importance of particular tantièmes as a determining element.

What few people know is that some lower courts had sometimes interpreted these situations differently. Before this clarification, some tribunals considered that the absence of a secondary association necessarily implied a common ownership by all co-owners over all common parts. The Court of Cassation has put an end to this uncertainty.

For the future, this case law encourages more precise drafting of co-ownership regulations. Developers and notaries must now clearly distinguish the different categories of common parts and attribute specific tantièmes. A positive evolution for transparency and dispute prevention.

Recap and Next Steps

Frequently Asked Questions:

1. How do I know if my regulations provide for special common parts?
Examine the table of distribution of tantièmes. If different thousandths are attributed for the common parts of each building, you are probably in this situation.

2. Who decides on works on the special common parts of my building?
Only the co-owners of your building vote on these works, during the general meeting of the principal association or, where applicable, the secondary association.

3. Can I refuse to pay for works on the common parts of another building?
Yes, if these parts are clearly defined as special to that building in the regulations. You must, however, continue to pay for the general common parts.

4. What to do if the managing agent does not respect this distinction?
Contest the decision at the general meeting, then seize the judicial tribunal if necessary. Keep all evidence of the special nature of the common parts concerned.

5. Does this decision apply retroactively?
It applies to all existing regulations, but past judicial decisions with res judicata force are not called into question.

Conclusion

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 →