Breach of Articles 11 and 26 of the Act

Application pratique:

This case law distinguishes between amending charge apportionment (requiring a double majority under Article 26 of the 1965 Act) and routine management decisions (Article 24). As the resolution likely modified charge distribution without amending the co-ownership regulations, it may be void. Check the meeting minutes for the majority used. If only a simple majority was obtained, contest the resolution within two months by registered letter to the syndic, then file an application with the tribunal judiciaire if necessary. Keep all notice and minute documents.

Application pratique:

Per this ruling, changing the apportionment of general charges constitutes an amendment to the règlement de copropriété, needing a double majority (Article 26). A simple majority decision is invalid. Immediately object in writing to the syndic, referencing this case law (Cour de cassation, 18 February 2004, n° 02-17.470), and demand a return to the original répartition. If refused, commence legal action within the two-month appeal deadline. Retain all charge statements and compare them to the tantièmes (share fractions) in the co-ownership deed.

Application pratique:

This decision confirms that any charge apportionment change requires formal amendment of the co-ownership regulations, not just a management vote. Before signing the compromis de vente, obtain the last three years of general meeting minutes to check for improper resolutions. Ask the notaire to verify that no amendments altering répartition des charges have been registered. Consider a clause in the purchase contract stating the seller guarantees no pending claims to modify charge distribution. This shields you from sudden, improperly approved increases.