Droit Immobilier

The decision declaring is justified

📅 Décision du 09 June 1987⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 1 vues📖 2 min de lecture

The decision declaring inadmissible, as it stands, the indemnity claim brought by a construction company against businesses that worked with it and are subject to insolvency proceedings is justified; that company, itself facing numerous claims for damages, had sought a ruling that the businesses should indemnify it against all orders, both for the principal sum and for costs; indeed, its written submissions show that the claims introduced by that company actually sought payment of sums of money for a cause arising before the opening of the insolvency proceedings concerning the businesses and that, therefore, they had to be subject to the verification of claims procedure.

Reference decision: Cass. • No. 84-14.308 • 1987-06-09 • View the decision →

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

The situation

The decision declaring inadmissible, as it stands, the indemnity claim brought by a construction company against businesses that worked with it and are subject to insolvency proceedings is justified; that company, itself facing numerous claims for damages, had sought a ruling that the businesses should indemnify it against all orders, both for the principal sum and for costs; indeed, its written submissions show that the claims introduced by that company actually sought payment of sums of money for a cause arising before the opening of the insolvency proceedings concerning the businesses and that, therefore, they had to be subject to the verification of claims procedure.

What the law says

This decision confirms the fundamental principles of property law.

Key points

  • Scrupulously respect legal time limits for appeals
  • Keep all your supporting documents (deeds, contracts, correspondence)
  • Anticipate: 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: 84-14.308
  • Juridiction: Cour de cassation
  • Date de décision: 09 juin 1987

Mots-clés

droit immobilierjurisprudenceimmobilier

Cas d'usage pratiques

1

Off-plan buyer seeks refund after developer's liquidation

A first-time buyer in Lyon paid a €30,000 deposit for an off-plan apartment. Before completion, the developer is placed in judicial liquidation (liquidation judiciaire), a French insolvency procedure where the company ceases trading and its assets are sold to pay creditors.

Application pratique:

Under the 1987 decision, the buyer's claim for the deposit arose before the insolvency and must go through the official claims verification procedure (vérification des créances). The buyer must now send a detailed claim statement (déclaration de créance) by registered letter to the court-appointed liquidator (mandataire judiciaire) within two months of the public announcement in the BODACC, attaching the contract and proof of payment. Missing this deadline will make the claim unenforceable.

2

Commercial landlord pursues unpaid rent from insolvent tenant

A landlord in Paris has €12,000 in unpaid rent from a small business tenant (SARL) recently placed in judicial reorganisation (redressement judiciaire), a French court-supervised recovery procedure. The landlord directly sues the tenant for the arrears.

Application pratique:

As per the ruling, the unpaid rent debt originated before the reorganisation proceedings opened, so it must be declared via the claims verification process. The landlord should immediately send a déclaration de créance by registered post to the mandataire judiciaire listed in the court judgment, detailing the amount and dates, and must do so within two months of receiving formal notice. Failing to follow this procedure renders the claim inadmissible in court.

3

Condo association recovers advance from bankrupt contractor

In Nice, a condominium syndicate (syndicat de copropriété) paid a €50,000 advance to a building firm for facade renovation. The firm enters judicial liquidation before starting work, leaving the advance at risk.

Application pratique:

The Cour de cassation decision means the syndicate's claim for the advance, which arose before the liquidation, must be lodged through the official insolvency procedure. The managing agent (syndic) must file a déclaration de créance with the liquidator within two months of the liquidation notice in the BODACC, providing the signed contract and proof of bank transfer. This preserves the right to possibly recover part of the advance from the sale of the firm's assets.

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 — 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