Aller au contenu principal
Droit Immobilier

In Light of a Decision of the General Meeting

📅 Décision du 30 September 1998⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 12 vues📖 2 min de lecture

In light of a decision of the general meeting of co-owners approving the division of unbuilt lots in favour of two companies that were previously members of the co-ownership association, a Court of Appeal, having held that the co-ownership association had not performed any act of disposal and had alienated nothing, and that the lots in question had left the original co-ownership to form a separate co-ownership, it being observed that the lots already belonged to the two companies, correctly deduced that, as this was a division provided for in Article 28 of the Law of 10 July 1965, the decision could be adopted by the majority required under Article 25 of that Law.

Reference decision: cc • N° 96-21.904 • 1998-09-30 • Consult the decision →

This decision sheds important light on your property law. Here is what it changes for you.

The situation

In light of a decision of the general meeting of co-owners approving the division of unbuilt lots in favour of two companies that were previously members of the co-ownership association, a Court of Appeal, having held that the co-ownership association had not performed any act of disposal and had alienated nothing, and that the lots in question had left the original co-ownership to form a separate co-ownership, it being observed that the lots already belonged to the two companies, correctly deduced that, as this was a division provided for in Article 28 of the Law of 10 July 1965, the decision could be adopted by the majority required under Article 25 of that Law.

What the law says

This decision confirms the fundamental principles of property law.

Key points

  • Strictly comply with the statutory time limits for appeal
  • Keep all your supporting documents (titles, deeds, correspondence)
  • Be proactive: preventive advice always costs less 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

Informations juridiques

  • Numéro: 96-21.904
  • Juridiction: Cour de cassation
  • Date de décision: 30 septembre 1998

Mots-clés

droit immobilierjurisprudenceimmobilier

Cas d'usage pratiques

1

Subdividing vacant plots in a co-ownership development

You own five unbuilt lots within a large co-ownership in Nice, and you want to create a separate co-ownership to develop them into a small residential complex. Other co-owners are blocking the vote, claiming that splitting the estate requires unanimity or a higher majority, causing a year-long deadlock.

Application pratique:

This case law confirms that under Article 28 of the French Law of 10 July 1965, dividing unbuilt lots already owned by members of the co-ownership association is not a disposal of common property. Therefore, the decision only requires the majority specified in Article 25 (a majority of all co-owners representing at least half of the voting rights). You should request a general meeting vote under that lower threshold, citing this precedent to overcome resistance and proceed with your project.

2

Separating a commercial building from a mixed-use co-ownership

As a landlord, you own a commercial building with three shops inside a mixed-use co-ownership in Lyon. You wish to manage it independently as a separate co-ownership, but the syndicate insists on a unanimous vote, making the split impossible. The property is valued at approximately €800,000.

Application pratique:

Because the commercial lots are already your private property, their separation under Article 28 of the 1965 Law constitutes a division rather than an alienation. The Court of Cassation confirmed that only an Article 25 majority is needed (majority of all co-owners and at least half the voting rights). You can compel the syndicate to call a vote on this basis, using the decision to argue against the demand for unanimity and enabling the split to proceed.

3

Developer retains and later splits undeveloped lots

You have just bought a flat in a new-build co-ownership of 50 units in Bordeaux, where the developer kept ten vacant lots. The developer now intends to separate those lots into a distinct co-ownership, and you worry about future service charges and maintenance responsibilities should the division raise your costs.

Application pratique:

The ruling clarifies that such a division, when the lots are already owned by the developer (a member of the original co-ownership), requires only an Article 25 majority (majority of all co-owners representing at least half the votes). As a new co-owner, you can request full disclosure of the financial impacts before the vote, and if the majority threshold is met without your agreement, you may still challenge the decision on grounds of abuse of majority if it unfairly shifts costs to remaining co-owners.

Maître Cécile Zakine

À propos de l'auteur

Maître Cécile Zakine — Avocate au Barreau des Alpes-Maritimes, Docteur en Droit. Chaque article de ce magazine est rédigé à partir de l'analyse d'une décision de jurisprudence réelle, commentée et mise en perspective par les équipes de Maître Zakine.

Prendre rendez-vous →

Avertissement: Les analyses présentées sur ce site sont fournies à titre informatif uniquement et ne constituent pas des conseils juridiques personnalisés. Pour une consultation adaptée à votre situation, contactez un avocat.

★★★★★4.9/5 — Google Reviews

Does this affect you?

Consult Maître Zakine — lawyer, Doctor of Law. Fast, clear answer.

Book a consultation →

🔒 Confidential · No obligation

📬 Get legal updates

One legal analysis per week, straight to your inbox. Free, no spam.

🔒 1-click unsubscribe · GDPR compliant

Articles similaires en Immobilier

Voir tout →

Droit de la propriété : cadre légal et solutions

Viole l'article 29 du décret du 30 septembre 1953 la cour d'appel qui, pour déclarer irrecevable une demande en révision de loyers de baux commerciaux, retient que la demande doit indiquer, à peine de nullité, le montant du loyer demandé et que le loyer révisé n'est pas clairement défini pour chaque bail, alors que lorsque la demande en révision du loyer est formée accessoirement devant le tribunal de grande instance saisi à titre principal d'une question relevant de sa compétence, cette demande est instruite suivant les règles applicables devant cette juridiction, et non pas suivant la procédure spéciale en vigueur devant le juge des loyers commerciaux.

10 sept. 2026Lire →

Droit de la propriété : cadre légal et solutions

Viole l'article 24 du décret du 30 septembre 1953, selon lequel les loyers payés d'avance portent intérêt au profit du locataire pour les sommes excédant celle qui correspond au prix du loyer de plus de deux termes, la Cour d'appel qui rejette une demande formée pour les intérêts des sommes payées d'avance excédant deux mois de loyers tout en constatant que le loyer était stipulé payable par terme mensuel.

10 sept. 2026Lire →

Litige immobilier : comprendre vos droits et recours

Selon l'article 9 de la loi du 10 juillet 1965 fixant le statut de la copropriété des immeubles bâtis, chaque copropriétaire use et jouit librement des parties privatives comprises dans son lot, sous la condition de ne porter atteinte ni aux droits des autres copropriétaires, ni à la destination de l'immeuble. Encourt la cassation pour violation de la loi l'arrêt qui énonce qu'il résulte de l'examen des actes que les copropriétaires, lors de la mise en copropriété, ont entendu affecter une partie de l'immeuble non à un simple usage commercial non défini, mais à destination de garage, alors qu'un changement de la nature de l'activité commerciale dans un lot où le règlement de copropriété autorise l'exercice du commerce n'implique pas, par lui-même, une modification de la destination de l'immeuble et peut s'effectuer librement, sous réserve de ne porter atteinte ni aux droits des autres copropriétaires ni à des limitations conventionnelles justifiées par la destination de l'immeuble

09 sept. 2026Lire →

Explorez plus d'analyses juridiques en droit immobilier

Tous les articles Immobilier
★★★★★4.9/5 — Avis Google

Maître Zakine, Doctor of Law

Phone and video consultations available — Fast appointments

Book an appointment
First consultation 30 minutes — €45

🔒 Confidentiel • Sans engagement • Réponse rapide