Aller au contenu principal
The notarial instrument, stating the names,
Droit Immobilier

The notarial instrument, stating the names,

📅 Decision of 25 July 2026🔄 Updated on 17 October 2026⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 36 views📖 2 min read

The notarial instrument, stating the names, forenames and abode of the attesting witness, satisfies the requirements of Article 12 of the Law of 25 Ventôse Year XI; and these statements must be considered as conclusive proof of the witness's actual domicile at the time of the execution of the instrument by the notary.

Reference decision: Cour de cassation • No. 69-10.900 • 11 June 1970 • Consult the decision →

This decision sheds important light on your property rights. Here is what it means for you.

The situation

The notarial instrument, stating the names, forenames and abode of the attesting witness, satisfies the requirements of Article 12 of the Law of 25 Ventôse Year XI; and these statements must be considered as conclusive proof of the witness's actual domicile at the time of the execution of the instrument by the notary.

What the law says

This decision confirms the fundamental principles of property law.

Key points

  • Strictly comply with statutory time limits for appeals
  • Keep all your supporting documents (title deeds, instruments, correspondence)
  • Anticipate: preventive advice always costs less 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

Legal information

  • Number: 69-10.900
  • Court: Cour de cassation

Keywords

droit immobilierjurisprudenceimmobilier

Practical use cases

1

First-time buyer faces challenge to notarial deed

A couple purchased their first flat in Lyon for €250,000 on 15 March 2024. The seller now attempts to annul the sale by claiming that one of the witnesses listed in the notarial deed did not actually live at the given address (12 Rue de la République, Lyon) on the day of signing.

Practical application:

Under the Cour de cassation ruling of 11 June 1970, the notarial deed's statement of the witness's abode is conclusive proof of their actual domicile at the time of execution. The couple should immediately point to this jurisprudence, keep the original deed safe, and instruct their notaire to dismiss the challenge. If the seller persists, they should seek a real estate lawyer to formally assert the deed's validity and, if necessary, request the court to rely on this established principle to avoid lengthy litigation.

2

Landlord defends inheritance deed against relative's claim

A landlord inherited a rental building in Marseille valued at €800,000 through a notarial deed of notoriety signed on 3 June 2023. A disgruntled cousin contests the deed, arguing that a witness's domicile was incorrectly stated (18 Boulevard Longchamp, Marseille) as the witness had moved abroad two weeks earlier.

Practical application:

The 1970 ruling makes the notarial mention of the witness's abode irrefutable evidence of their residence at the time of signing. The landlord should provide a copy of the deed to the cousin, highlighting the legal force of such statements. To pre-empt any court action, the landlord's avocat can file a motion citing this jurisprudence, ensuring the deed stands unchallenged and the inheritance remains secure.

3

Co-owner invalidates works decision via witness domicile challenge

In a co-ownership building in Nice, a general assembly voted on 10 January 2025 to carry out roof repairs costing €100,000, recorded in a notarial deed. A dissenting co-owner seeks to block the works by alleging that a witness's stated address (5 Avenue Jean Médecin, Nice) was fraudulent, claiming the witness never resided there.

Practical application:

The managing agent (syndic) and majority co-owners can rely on the 1970 Cour de cassation decision, which treats the notary's declaration as conclusive proof. They should formally notify the dissenting co-owner that this jurisprudence bars any challenge based on the witness's abode. To avoid delays, the syndic can seek a summary court order to enforce the vote, referencing the deed's probative value and this established case law.

Maître Cécile Zakine

About the author

Maître Cécile Zakine — Lawyer at the Alpes-Maritimes Bar, Doctor of Law. Every article in this magazine is based on the analysis of a real court decision, commented and put into perspective by Maître Zakine’s team.

Book an appointment →

Disclaimer: The analysis presented on this site is for informational purposes only and does not constitute personalised legal advice. For advice tailored to your situation, contact a qualified lawyer.

★★★★★4.9/5 — Google Reviews

Does this affect you?

Consult Maître Zakine — lawyer, Doctor of Law. Fast, clear answer.

Book a consultation →

🔒 Confidential · No obligation

📬 Get legal updates

One legal analysis per week, straight to your inbox. Free, no spam.

🔒 1-click unsubscribe · GDPR compliant

★★★★★4.9/5 — Avis Google

Maître Zakine, Doctor of Law

Phone and video consultations available — Fast appointments

Book an appointment
First consultation 30 minutes — €45

🔒 Confidentiel • Sans engagement • Réponse rapide