Il ne résulte ni de l'ordonnance du 21 avril 2006, relative à la saisie immobilière, ni de son décret d'application, une obligation, pour le créancier poursuivant, de signifier le commandement de payer valant saisie au concubin du débiteur, lorsque la saisie porte sur un bien, appartenant en propre au débiteur et constituant la résidence de la famille
Droit Immobilier

Il ne résulte ni de l'ordonnance du 21 avril 2006, relative à la saisie immobilière, ni de son décret d'application, une obligation, pour le créancier poursuivant, de signifier le commandement de payer valant saisie au concubin du débiteur, lorsque la saisie porte sur un bien, appartenant en propre au débiteur et constituant la résidence de la famille

📅 Décision du 30 April 2009⚖️ Cour de cassation📖 2 min de lecture

Neither the Ordinance of 21 April 2006 on the seizure of immovable property, nor its implementing decree, imposes an obligation on the pursuing creditor to serve the formal notice to pay taking effect as a seizure on the debtor’s cohabiting partner, where the seizure concerns a property owned exclusively by the debtor and constituting the family residence.

Reference decision: Court of Cassation • No. 08-12.105 • 2009-04-30 • Consult the decision →

This decision provides important clarification on your immovable property law. Here is what it means for you.

The situation

Neither the Ordinance of 21 April 2006 on the seizure of immovable property, nor its implementing decree, imposes an obligation on the pursuing creditor to serve the formal notice to pay taking effect as a seizure on the debtor’s cohabiting partner, where the seizure concerns a property owned exclusively by the debtor and constituting the family residence.

What the law says

This decision confirms the fundamental principles of property law.

Points to note

  • Strictly adhere to statutory time limits for appeals
  • Keep all your supporting documents (titles, deeds, correspondence)
  • Plan ahead: preventive advice is always cheaper than litigation

For an analysis of your situation: 30-minute consultation for €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: 08-12.105
  • Juridiction: Cour de cassation
  • Date de décision: 30 avril 2009

Mots-clés

droit immobilierjurisprudenceimmobilier

Cas d'usage pratiques

1

Homeowner facing mortgage arrears in Lyon

Pierre owns a €250,000 detached house in Lyon solely in his name. He is three months behind on his mortgage, owing €9,000 in arrears. He lives there with his civil partner, Sophie, who is not on the title deed. The bank initiates seizure proceedings.

Application pratique:

This case confirms the bank does not need to serve the formal notice on Sophie. Pierre cannot challenge the seizure on grounds she was not notified. He should immediately contact the bank to negotiate a payment plan or seek a conciliation order, as his sole ownership means only his procedural rights are engaged.

2

Bank seizing a debtor's family home in Toulouse

A French bank holds a €120,000 enforceable debt against Antoine, who owns a flat in Toulouse outright. Antoine's spouse, Céline, lives with him but is not a co-owner. The bank instructs its bailiff to serve a notice of seizure to Antoine only.

Application pratique:

Relying on this ruling, the bank correctly serves only the registered owner. It can proceed without serving Céline, reducing delay and risk of procedural nullity. The bank should still verify sole ownership via the land registry to avoid later challenges and ensure the debtor's proper identification.

3

Unmarried partner unaware of seizure in Marseille

Nadia has lived for five years in a house in Marseille owned solely by her partner, Karim. Unbeknownst to her, he defaulted on a €35,000 loan secured by the property. A creditor initiates forced sale proceedings without notifying Nadia.

Application pratique:

Because the property is exclusively Karim's, the creditor is not required to serve Nadia, even though it is her home. She should proactively check Karim's financial status or register a joint interest with the land registry if she can. If the seizure proceeds, she may face eviction and should urgently seek legal advice on her limited rights of opposition as a non-owner occupant.

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.

Maître Zakine, Doctor of Law

Phone and video consultations available — Fast appointments

Book an appointment
First consultation 30 minutes — €45