By exercising the power granted to them

Practical application:

This case confirms that a vote to maintain subdivision rules under Article L. 442-9 does not transform them into contractual obligations. As a co-owner, you can still enforce the rule against the builder. Action: immediately send a formal notice (mise en demeure) to the builder, referencing the court decision. If ignored, file a lawsuit seeking an injunction and damages for non-compliance with the subdivision regulations.

Practical application:

Since no vote to maintain the rules occurred, the subdivision regulations have lapsed automatically. The developer can build without regard to the old rules. Action: verify the exact lapse date and confirm no vote was recorded. If clear, proceed with building permit application. Co-owners cannot enforce the old rules, but may seek to negotiate new contractual restrictions. The developer should obtain a certificate from the town hall confirming the lapse.

Practical application:

The buyer unfortunately has no recourse against the neighbor if the rules have lapsed and no vote was taken. Action: check the subdivision's history of votes under Article L. 442-9. If no vote occurred, the rules are void. The buyer may still have a claim against the seller for failure to disclose (vice caché) if the seller knew the rules had lapsed. Seek legal advice to explore a claim for damages or rescission of the sale, but the neighbor's activity cannot be stopped.