Co-ownership: Why the General Meeting Can Only Appoint One Chairperson

Imagine yourself in Parentis-en-Born, in that lakeside residence where every owner dreams of peace and quiet. The annual general meeting is approaching, and as every year, tensions rise between those who want works done and those who prefer to keep charges low. This year, an unusual question arises: can we elect two chairpersons to lead the meeting? After all, it would allow better representation of different viewpoints...

This situation is not so rare. In co-ownerships in Tarnos as elsewhere, disagreements can lead to original solutions, sometimes too original in light of the law. But what does the justice system really think? Can we really share the chairmanship of a general meeting?

The Court of Cassation (the highest French judicial court) ruled on this question in 2018 in a judgment that has since become a reference. Its answer is clear and final: no, a general meeting can only appoint one chairperson. This decision, although technical, has very concrete consequences for all co-owners. Let's see why.

The facts: a story as it happens every day

The story begins in a perfectly ordinary co-ownership, similar to those I regularly encounter in the jurisdiction of Mont-de-Marsan. Several owners, each with their own ideas on managing the building. During a general meeting, tensions were such that no single candidate could obtain the necessary majority to be elected chairperson.

Faced with this impasse, the co-owners present imagined a solution: why not elect two chairpersons? Thus, Mr. Martin, a proponent of rigorous financial management, and Mrs. Dubois, in favour of beautification works, could jointly lead the meeting. The idea seemed appealing: each would represent a tendency, and decisions would be more balanced.

The meeting therefore proceeded with this double election. The minutes (the official records of the meeting) clearly mentioned this joint appointment. The tantièmes (the shares of ownership in the co-ownership, expressed in thousandths or ten-thousandths) were distributed among the various resolutions: 34,555 tantièmes for some decisions, 38,175 for others, clearly showing the division of the co-ownership.

But quickly, problems arose. Who should sign the official documents? Who legally represented the meeting in case of a dispute? Were the decisions taken during this meeting valid? A co-owner, unhappy with this situation, took legal action. The case went up to the Court of Cassation after several twists and turns before the first instance and appeal courts.

The court's reasoning — dissected

The judges of the Court of Cassation examined this question with great rigour. Their reasoning is based on Article 22 of the Law of 10 July 1965, a fundamental text governing co-ownerships in France. This article specifies the rules for the functioning of general meetings, without however explicitly mentioning the possible number of chairpersons.

But be careful: the absence of explicit mention does not mean that anything is permitted. The judges recalled a fundamental principle of meeting law: the unity of direction. In other words, a meeting, like any decision-making body, must have clear and unique direction to function effectively. Imagine a ship with two captains giving contradictory orders: the result would be chaos.

The Court analysed the arguments of both parties. Those defending the dual chairmanship invoked the freedom of co-owners to organise their meetings as they saw fit. After all, if everyone agreed, why prohibit this pragmatic solution? But the Court rejected this argument: some rules are mandatory to guarantee the legal certainty of decisions taken.

In short, the decision confirms consistent case law: for years, courts have considered that the appointment of a single chairperson is a condition for the validity of resolutions (decisions voted in a meeting). It is therefore not a mere formality, but a legal requirement. What few people know is that a poorly chaired meeting can see all its decisions annulled, even if they were otherwise legitimate.

In this case, the Court quashed (annulled) the appeal court judgment that had validated the dual chairmanship. It referred the case back to another appeal court to rule again, applying this now clear principle: only one person must chair the general meeting.

What this changes for you — concretely

But what exactly does this change in your daily life as a co-owner? Let's take concrete examples, like that residence in Tarnos where I recently advised owners.

If you are a co-owner, you must now know that any election of multiple chairpersons during a general meeting potentially renders decisions void. Concretely, if your co-ownership votes for works costing €50,000 with a single chairperson, this decision is valid. With two chairpersons, it could be challenged and annulled, even if the works have already started. The financial consequences can be heavy: cancellation of contracts, penalties, and sometimes even personal liability of co-owners who voted for this illegal organisation.

For landlords (owners who rent out their property), the situation is also crucial. A meeting decision annulled can call into question works necessary for letting, or create uncertainties about the amount of charges. undefined, I have encountered cases where tenants refused to pay charges corresponding to works voted in irregular meetings.

Purchasers of a co-ownership unit must also be vigilant. Before buying, check the minutes of recent meetings: if they were chaired by several people, important decisions (works, modification of the co-ownership regulations) could be challenged. This can affect the property's value or create unpleasant surprises after purchase.

Finally, for managing agents (the professionals who manage co-ownerships), this decision is a reminder. They must ensure strict compliance with formal rules during meetings. A managing agent who allows the election of multiple chairpersons exposes themselves to legal action for mismanagement.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Check the general meeting minutes: before signing, ensure that only one chairperson is mentioned. If multiple names appear, refuse to sign and demand a new meeting.
• Prepare the chairperson election in advance: in conflictual co-ownerships, propose a consensual candidacy before the meeting. Discuss it with other co-owners to find a compromise acceptable to all.
• Consult the co-ownership regulations: some regulations provide specific rules for the chairperson election. Scrupulously respect them, as they add to legal requirements.
• In case of doubt, call in a professional: a specialised lawyer or professional managing agent can assist the meeting to guarantee its regularity. The cost (around €200 to €400) is often much lower than that of a dispute.

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

Deep dive: related case law and developments

This 2018 decision fits into consistent case law. Already in 1995, the Court of Cassation had affirmed the principle of unity of chairmanship in a less known but equally important judgment. The first instance courts in the jurisdiction of Mont-de-Marsan have regularly applied this principle, notably in a case concerning a co-ownership in Parentis-en-Born in 2012.

The trend is clear: courts are strengthening formal requirements for general meetings. Why this rigour? Because meeting decisions bind all co-owners, including those who were absent or voted against. It is therefore essential that these decisions are taken under impeccable conditions.

What this means for the future? Probably increased vigilance from co-owners and professionals. "Wild" or too informal meetings risk being challenged more and more. Conversely, well-prepared and formally regular meetings will gain in legal security.

undefined, I observe that co-owners are increasingly informed and demanding about compliance with rules. This Court of Cassation decision gives them a solid argument to refuse approximate practices.

In practice: what to do

Here is a checklist of what to do if you face this situation:

1. Identify the problem: during a meeting, if several people are proposed for the chairmanship, immediately recall the legal requirement of a single chairperson.
2. Propose a solution: suggest a rotating chairmanship (each candidate chairs part of the meeting) or the election of a single chairperson with a vice-chairperson to assist.
3. Document everything: if despite everything a dual chairmanship is set up, note your opposition in the attendance register and refuse to sign the minutes.
4. Act quickly: if decisions were taken with a dual chairmanship, you generally have two months to challenge them before the court. Do not delay.
5. Consult a lawyer: in case of doubt about a meeting's validity, have the minutes checked by a lawyer. A preventive consultation can avoid years of proceedings.

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 →