Revocation of a Gift for Ingratitude: A One-Year Time Limit Strictly to Be Observed

Imagine: you are retired, living in the house you gave to your nephew ten years ago. One day, he serves you with an ejectment claim. You are hurt, betrayed. You want to revoke the gift. But how long do you have to act? One year? Two? The answer is in Article 957 of the Civil Code: one year from the day you became aware of the offence. But what is an "offence"? And if the behaviour continues over time, is the time limit postponed? That is exactly the question the Court of Cassation decided on 20 May 2009, in a case that concerns many owners, particularly within the jurisdiction of Mont-de-Marsan.

The case involved a donor, Mrs Z..., against her donee who brought an ejectment action against her. The donor considered that this action constituted ingratitude justifying revocation of the gift. But the Court of Appeal dismissed her claim, holding that the one-year period had not started because the act of ingratitude (the ejectment action) continued over time. The Court of Cassation overturned this decision: an ejectment action is an instantaneous act, even if its effects last. The time limit therefore runs from the originating claim. This decision is crucial for any owner who has made a gift and would suffer ingratitude from the donee.

So, what should you remember? If you are a donor and the donee shows ingratitude, you must act quickly: one year after the act, it is too late. This strict rule applies to everyone, whether you are in Tarnos, Mimizan or elsewhere. Let us analyse this decision together and see how to avoid pitfalls.

The Facts: a story like many others

Mrs Z..., an owner in Tarnos, had made a gift of several flats to a relative. Later, tensions arose. The donee brought an ejectment action against Mrs Z... and her husband, summoning them before the court on 20 October 2003. Mrs Z..., considering that this action constituted serious ingratitude, sought revocation of the gift. But she did not act immediately: she waited more than a year after the summons to bring her claim.

Before the Court of Appeal, Mrs Z... argued that the act of ingratitude was not a one-off event but a continuing behaviour: the donee had not only brought the action but maintained it throughout the proceedings. According to her, the one-year period had therefore not started, or at least was postponed until the end of the proceedings. The appeal judges followed this reasoning: they rejected the plea of limitation, considering that the act of ingratitude was "continuous".

The Court of Cassation disagreed. It quashed the appeal decision on the basis of Article 957 of the Civil Code. According to the High Court, an ejectment action is an instantaneous act: it materialises by the act of seising the court. It does not matter that the action then continues over time. The one-year period therefore runs from the summons, not from the end of the proceedings. In this case, Mrs Z... had waited too long: her claim was out of time.

The reasoning of the court — explained

The basis of the decision is Article 957 of the Civil Code, which provides: "The claim for revocation on grounds of ingratitude must be brought within one year from the day of the offence alleged by the donor against the donee, or from the day the donor could have known of the offence." In clear terms, if the donee commits an act of ingratitude (such as an assault, a slanderous accusation, or here an ejectment action), the donor has one year to seek revocation of the gift. This period runs either from the date of the offence or from the time the donor became aware of it (if later).

In this case, the question was whether the act of ingratitude (the ejectment action) should be classified as an "instantaneous offence" or a "continuing offence". An instantaneous offence is a single act that is consummated in an instant (like a blow, an insult). A continuing offence is behaviour that continues over time (like a state of violence or harassment). The Court of Appeal had considered that the ejectment action, once brought, continued until judgment was given: the donee maintained his claim, which constituted a continuous fact. Therefore, the time limit only started at the end of that behaviour.

The Court of Cassation rejected this analysis. It distinguishes the generating act (the act of summons) from its procedural consequences. A summons to court is a single act: it manifests the donee's intention to eject the donor. The maintenance of that action in court is merely the continuation of the proceedings, not a new act of ingratitude. In other words, the offence is consummated upon the filing of the summons. Consequently, the one-year period runs from that date. This is a strict application of Article 957, which protects legal certainty: the donee must know quickly whether his act will lead to revocation.

This decision is not a reversal: it confirms settled case law. The Court of Cassation has repeatedly held that the time limit in Article 957 is mandatory and cannot be extended. It is rigorous to prevent revocation actions from dragging on. However, note that the Court accepts that the time limit may be postponed if the donor did not immediately become aware of the offence. But here, Mrs Z... was aware of the summons upon receipt. She therefore had no excuse.

undefined, I have encountered cases where donors, hurt by ingratitude, hesitate to act out of hope for reconciliation or fear of proceedings. This decision reminds them not to delay: once the year has passed, the right to seek revocation is lost. It is a harsh rule, but necessary for the stability of gifts.

What this means for you — practically

If you are an owner-landlord and have made a gift of property to a relative, you must be vigilant. If the donee shows ingratitude (for example, by trying to eject you, insulting you, publicly defaming you), you have one year to bring a revocation action. This time limit runs from the act of ingratitude, not its consequences. For example, if your nephew serves you with an ejectment summons on 1 March 2025, you must bring your revocation action before 1 March 2026. After that date, you can no longer seek revocation, even if the ejectment proceedings continue.

For donees, this decision is protective: it prevents the donor from being able to brandish the threat of revocation indefinitely after letting a year pass. If you receive a gift, you know that after one year without action, the donor can no longer reproach you for ingratitude (unless a new act occurs). This secures your property right.

Concrete example: in Mimizan, a retiree gives his house to his daughter. After a conflict, she brings an ejectment action against her father to recover the property. The father, hurt, wants to revoke the gift. He must act within one year of the summons. If he waits for the ejectment trial to end, which may last two or three years, it will be too late. Even if the daughter maintained her action throughout the proceedings, the time limit runs from the start.

If you are a co-owner, this decision may also apply if a co-owner has made a gift of his shares to you and shows ingratitude. The same time limit applies. Generally, any gift inter vivos (i.e., made during the donor's lifetime) may be revoked for ingratitude if the conditions are met. But note: revocation is not automatic. Ingratitude must be proved (ill-treatment, serious insults, or a civil offence). An ejectment action is one such act, but other acts may also be considered.

What few people know is that revocation for ingratitude only applies to gifts inter vivos, not to testamentary legacies (which can be freely revoked by the testator). Furthermore, if the donor dies before acting, his heirs cannot exercise the action on his behalf, unless he had already brought it.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Act without delay in case of ingratitude: As soon as you become aware of an act of ingratitude (insult, ejection, etc.), do not delay. Consult a lawyer to start the revocation procedure within the year. Note the precise date of the event: that is your starting point.
• Keep all evidence: Keep copies of summons, letters, witness statements, etc. If there is a dispute about the date of knowledge of the offence, you will need to prove when you became aware of it. A registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt can serve as proof.
• Provide for a resolutory clause in the deed of gift: To avoid the uncertainties of judicial proceedings, you can insert a clause in the deed of gift providing for automatic revocation in case of defined ingratitude (e.g., an ejectment action). Note: this clause must be carefully drafted by a notary or lawyer.
• Prefer mediation in case of conflict: Before resorting to legal action, try mediation. A family conflict can sometimes be defused by a neutral third party. This can avoid a long and costly procedure and preserve relationships.

Further reading: related case law and developments

The Court of Cassation has issued several decisions on Article 957 of the Civil Code. For example, in a decision of 28 January 2003 (appeal no. 00-21.335), it held that the one-year period runs from knowledge of the offence, even if the donor attempted conciliation. In other words, attempts at conciliation do not suspend the time limit. In another decision of 13 February 2007 (appeal no. 05-17.081), it specified that a revocation action cannot be brought after the donor's death: it is a personal right.

The trend of the courts is towards a strict application of the one-year time limit, for reasons of legal certainty. Judges very rarely accept postponing the starting point, except in cases of concealment of the offence by the donee. For example, if the donee hides his actions, the time limit only runs from discovery. But generally, the act of summons is known immediately.

For the future, it is unlikely that case law will evolve towards relaxation. The Court of Cassation is attached to the letter of Article 957. Real estate professionals must therefore incorporate this time limit into their advice. Notaries, in particular, have a duty to inform donors about the risks of ingratitude and the time limits for action.

Key points to remember

FAQ:

• What constitutes ingratitude justifying revocation of a gift? These are serious acts: ill-treatment, serious insults, or a civil offence (such as an attempt at ejectment). The assessment is left to the judge.
• What is the time limit for bringing a revocation action? One year from the day of the offence or its discovery by the donor. After this period, the action is inadmissible.
• Is a legal action that lasts over time a continuing act? No, according to the Court of Cassation. The act of summons is an instantaneous act. Maintaining the action does not postpone the time limit.
• Can I revoke a gift if the donee is ungrateful after my death? No, the action is personal to the donor. If you die before acting, your heirs cannot do so in your place.
• What if I discover the ingratitude more than a year later? You must prove that you could only have known of the offence recently. For example, if the donee concealed his acts. But this is difficult to prove.

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

Are you in a similar situation? A first 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) may save you months of proceedings — and often much more. Book an appointment →