Aller au contenu principal
Neither the stipulation of the regulation of
Droit Immobilier

Neither the stipulation of the regulation of

📅 Decision of 04 January 1989🔄 Updated on 18 October 2026⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 22 views📖 2 min read

Neither the stipulation in the co-ownership regulations nor a decision of the general meeting of co-owners may impose a restriction on a co-owner's rights over his lot. The decision ruling that the caretaker's lodge, established as a private lot upon the division of the building, must remain designated as the caretaker's dwelling, given that the regulations provide that the charges for this lot will be included in the common charges as long as it is designated for common use and that the general meeting decided to maintain the caretaker's post, must be overturned.

Reference decision: cc • No. 87-14.545 • 1989-01-04 • View the decision →

This decision provides important clarification on your property rights. Here is what it changes for you.

The situation

Neither the stipulation in the co-ownership regulations nor a decision of the general meeting of co-owners may impose a restriction on a co-owner's rights over his lot. The decision ruling that the caretaker's lodge, established as a private lot upon the division of the building, must remain designated as the caretaker's dwelling, given that the regulations provide that the charges for this lot will be included in the common charges as long as it is designated for common use and that the general meeting decided to maintain the caretaker's post, must be overturned.

What the law says

This decision confirms the fundamental principles of property law.

Points to remember

  • Strictly comply with legal time limits for appeals
  • Keep all supporting documents (titles, deeds, correspondence)
  • Plan ahead: preventive advice always costs less than litigation

For an analysis of your situation: 30-minute consultation at €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: 87-14.545
  • Court: Cour de cassation
  • Decision of: 04 January 1989

Keywords

droit immobilierjurisprudenceimmobilier
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