Condominium Regulations: Can the General Meeting Modify the Distribution of Charges?

Imagine you own an apartment in a residence in Capbreton, facing the ocean. You receive your condominium charge statement every quarter (the common expenses for maintaining common areas, the lift, security, etc.). But here's the thing: you feel your share (your portion of the charges) is too high compared to your neighbour who owns a similar property. You consult the condominium regulations (the document that organises life in the building): the distribution is indeed recorded there, sometimes dating back to construction. Do you think you're stuck?

I encounter this situation regularly in my practice, whether in Mont-de-Marsan or on the Côte d'Azur. Condominium owners feel aggrieved by a distribution of charges they consider unfair, but hesitate to act because "it's written in the regulations". The question is simple: can you challenge a clause in the condominium regulations, even an old one, if it doesn't comply with the law?

The Cour de cassation, in a decision of 10 September 2020, provides a clear and reassuring answer. It recalls that the general meeting of condominium owners (the annual meeting of all owners) is the competent body to modify the regulations. Importantly, it affirms that any condominium owner can, at any time, have it established that a clause on the distribution of charges does not comply with the law and request its correction. In other words, the fact that a clause is written in the regulations does not make it untouchable if it is illegal. But what exactly does this change for you, as an owner in Parentis-en-Born or a tenant in Capbreton?

The Facts: An Everyday Story

Take the example of Mr Dubois, owner of an apartment in a condominium of 20 units in Parentis-en-Born, near the lake. When he purchased five years ago, he received the condominium regulations, a document of about thirty pages. Article 8 details the distribution of charges: 60% according to the relative value of each unit (i.e., based on surface area and location), and 40% according to the tantièmes (the condominium shares allocated to each unit). Mr Dubois thus pays about €1,200 in annual charges for his 70 m² three-room apartment.

During a general meeting, he speaks with his upstairs neighbour, Mr Martin, who owns an identical three-room apartment. The latter reveals that he pays only €900 in charges per year. Stunned, Mr Dubois checks: indeed, in the regulations, the tantièmes allocated to his unit are higher than those of Mr Martin, without objective reason (same surface area, exposure, floor). He considers this difference, which costs him €300 per year, or €1,500 over five years, to be unjustified.

Mr Dubois then contacts the managing agent (the condominium manager) to request a modification of the distribution. The managing agent replies that the regulations, established at construction in 1995, can only be modified by a decision of the general meeting with a qualified majority (two-thirds of the votes), and that this seems complicated. Frustrated, Mr Dubois initiates legal proceedings against the condominium association (the legal entity representing all condominium owners) to have the illegality of the clause established and obtain a new distribution.

The tribunal judiciaire of Mont-de-Marsan, seized at first instance, rules in favour of Mr Dubois. It considers that the distribution of charges must comply with Article 10 of the Law of 10 July 1965 (the law governing condominiums), which imposes a fair distribution based on the utility each unit derives from the charges. The cour d'appel of Pau confirms this judgment. The condominium association then files an appeal to the Cour de cassation, arguing that the general meeting did not have the power to modify a clause in the condominium regulations without respecting strict formalities. This is where the Cour de cassation intervenes.

The Court's Reasoning — Explained

The Cour de cassation, in its judgment of 10 September 2020, dismisses the condominium association's appeal and validates the decision of the lower courts. Its reasoning rests on two key legal pillars, which I will explain simply.

First pillar: Article 43 of the Law of 10 July 1965. This article states that "the general meeting decides on modifications to be made to the condominium regulations". The magistrates of the Cour de cassation interpret this provision broadly. They consider that the general meeting is the body authorised to modify the regulations, and that this power includes the possibility of recognising the non-existence of a clause. In plain terms, if a clause in the regulations (like the one on the distribution of charges) does not comply with the law, the general meeting can decide that it is void and must be replaced. This does not mean it can modify the regulations arbitrarily, but that it has the authority to correct illegalities.

Second pillar: Article 10, paragraph 1, of the same law. This article imposes that "condominium charges are distributed among all condominium owners proportionally to the utility each unit presents". The Court recalls that any condominium owner or the condominium association can, at any time, have it established that a clause on the distribution of charges does not comply with this rule. It does not matter whether this clause appears in the original condominium regulations, in a subsequent amending deed, or in a general meeting decision. As soon as it is illegal, it can be challenged.

In Mr Dubois's case, the cour d'appel had established that the distribution based on unequal tantièmes for similar units did not respect the principle of utility. The Cour de cassation validates this analysis. It thus confirms consistent case law: courts can review the legality of clauses in condominium regulations, and condominium owners have a permanent right of action to have them corrected. This is not a revolutionary development, but an important confirmation that strengthens the legal security of owners.

However, be careful: the decision does not say that the general meeting can modify the regulations without conditions. It must do so in compliance with the law, and notably Article 10. If it makes an illegal decision (for example, an arbitrary distribution), it can be annulled in court. What few people know is that this case law also applies to clauses providing for a division in vertical condominiums (as mentioned in the decision's content), but that's another topic.

What This Changes for You — Practically

This decision has immediate practical implications for different profiles, whether you are an owner, tenant, or real estate professional in the jurisdiction of Mont-de-Marsan, including in Capbreton or Parentis-en-Born.

If you are a condominium owner (the holder of a unit in a condominium building), this decision gives you a lever for action. Suppose you own an apartment in Capbreton and pay €1,500 in annual charges, while your neighbour on the same floor with an identical surface area pays only €1,200. You can now act in several steps. First, check the distribution in the condominium regulations and assess its fairness. Then, contact the managing agent in writing to request a correction. If the managing agent refuses or delays, you can raise the matter at the general meeting by proposing a vote to modify the clause. If this fails, you have the right to initiate legal proceedings, like Mr Dubois. undefined, I have handled cases where condominium owners recovered several thousand euros in overpayments over 5 to 10 years.

If you are a tenant (the person occupying the property without owning it), this decision concerns you indirectly. Indeed, condominium charges are often passed on to you via service charges. If your landlord pays an excessive share, they might be tempted to charge you more. But know that the distribution of charges between landlord and tenant is governed by the decree of 26 August 1987, and you have recourse if you consider yourself overcharged. This decision strengthens owners' position to negotiate a fair distribution in the condominium, which can ultimately benefit tenants.

If you are a purchaser (a person considering buying a property in a condominium), this decision is a warning signal. Before buying, examine the condominium regulations carefully, especially the distribution of charges. In Parentis-en-Born, for example, for a purchase of €200,000, annual charges of €1,800 versus €1,200 for a similar unit can represent a significant additional cost over time. You can now negotiate with the seller to resolve this point before the sale, or plan post-purchase action. Time limits for action are flexible: you can challenge at any time, even years after acquisition.

If you are a managing agent or real estate professional, this decision requires increased vigilance. You must verify that the condominium regulations you manage or for properties you sell comply with Article 10 of the 1965 Law. In case of doubt, advise condominium owners to regularise the situation at a general meeting to avoid costly disputes. A dispute over the distribution of charges can last 1 to 2 years and cost several thousand euros in legal fees.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Always check the condominium regulations before buying: Request a copy of the regulations and have the distribution of charges analysed by a professional. Compare your share with that of similar units. If you notice an anomaly, negotiate a correction with the seller or plan future action.
• Attend general meetings and vote with full knowledge: Participate actively in your condominium's decisions. When a modification to the regulations is proposed, demand clear explanations of its impact on the distribution of charges. Vote against if it seems unfair to you.
• Document your exchanges with the managing agent: If you challenge a distribution, do so in writing (email or registered letter) and keep evidence. This will be crucial in case of legal proceedings. undefined, I have seen cases fail due to lack of evidence.
• Consult a specialised lawyer at the first signs of a problem: Don't let an unfair situation drag on. Early consultation can help you assess your chances of success and define a strategy, often for less than €100, whereas a lawsuit can cost much more.

Deep Dive: Related Case Law and Developments

The Cour de cassation decision of 10 September 2020 fits into well-established case law. For example, in a judgment of 15 March 2018 (No. 16-27.372), the Court had already affirmed that the general meeting could modify the condominium regulations to correct an illegal clause, including regarding the distribution of charges. This 2020 decision thus confirms and clarifies this jurisprudential line.

However, there are divergent decisions on ancillary points, such as the question of limitation periods (the time limit to act). Some courts have considered that the action to challenge a distribution of charges could be time-barred after 5 years, but the current trend, reinforced by this decision, is to consider that the right to act is permanent as long as the clause is illegal. This means that, even if your regulations date back 30 years, you can still challenge them today.

For the future, this case law encourages greater transparency and fairness in condominiums. It pushes managing agents and general meetings to review old regulations, often inherited from obsolete practices. In the jurisdiction of Mont-de-Marsan, where many condominiums were built in the 1970s-1980s (like in Parentis-en-Born or Capbreton), this could lead to a wave of regularisations. How to react? By being proactive: if you are a managing agent, propose an update of the regulations; if you are a condominium owner, seize the opportunity to assert your rights.

Checklist Before Acting

• Check your condominium regulations: Read the article on the distribution of charges. Note your share and compare it to that of similar units.
• Calculate the prejudice: Estimate the annual additional cost and cumulative over several years. For example, €300 per year over 10 years = €3,000.
• Contact the managing agent: Address a written request for correction to them, citing Article 10 of the 1965 Law and the Cour de cassation decision.
• Prepare for the general meeting: If the managing agent does not react, propose an item on the agenda of the next meeting to vote on a modification.
• Consult a lawyer: If the previous steps fail, make an appointment with a lawyer to assess the feasibility of legal action and its costs.

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

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 →