When a British national purchases a holiday home in the Dordogne, an American investor acquires a Paris apartment, or an Australian expat settles in Provence, the last thing on their mind is usually what happens to that property after they die. Yet French inheritance law operates on principles fundamentally at odds with the testamentary freedom that common-law jurisdictions take for granted. The most significant of these is the réserve héréditaire (forced heirship reserve): a legally mandated portion of your estate that must pass to your children, regardless of what your will says. A July 2026 clarification by French authorities on the scope of the droit de prélèvement compensatoire (compensatory levy right, or DPC) — France’s mechanism for extending forced heirship to estates governed by foreign law — has brought renewed urgency to this subject for Anglo-French families and non-resident property owners alike. This article explains how the French forced heirship regime affects foreign owners of French real estate, what the DPC clarification means in practice, and how to structure your ownership to preserve your estate planning objectives without running afoul of French public policy.
I. The French Réserve Héréditaire: A Fundamental Constraint on Testamentary Freedom
A. What the Forced Heirship Regime Requires
Under English and American law, an individual is generally free to leave their property to whomever they choose. That freedom is the cornerstone of estate planning in common-law systems. France takes the opposite approach. Article 912 of the Code civil defines the réserve héréditaire as “la part des biens et droits successoraux dont la loi assure la dévolution libre de charges à certains héritiers dits réservataires” — the portion of an estate that the law guarantees, free of encumbrances, to certain heirs known as héritiers réservataires (forced heirs). The quotité disponible (freely disposable portion) is whatever remains.
The proportions are set by Article 913 of the Code civil. If you leave one child, you may freely dispose of only half your estate; the child’s reserve absorbs the other half. With two children, your disposable portion drops to one-third (the children share two-thirds). With three or more children, you are limited to one-quarter, with the children dividing three-quarters among themselves. These proportions apply regardless of your nationality, your residence, or the content of your will — if French law governs the succession.
This is not a theoretical constraint. The action en réduction (claim for reduction of excessive gifts) allows a forced heir to claw back assets from any beneficiary — including a surviving spouse, a charity, or a stepchild — whose inheritance exceeds the quotité disponible. Article 924 of the Code civil states: “Lorsque la libéralité excède la quotité disponible, le gratifié, successible ou non successible, doit indemniser les héritiers réservataires à concurrence de la portion excessive de la libéralité, quel que soit cet excédent” — when a gift exceeds the disposable portion, the recipient must compensate the forced heirs up to the amount of the excess, whatever that excess may be. The reduction is calculated in value, not in kind: the beneficiary pays an indemnity rather than returning the property itself (Art. 924 C. civ.).
The time limits for bringing an action en réduction are generous. Article 921 of the Code civil provides for a five-year prescription period from the opening of the succession, or two years from the day the heirs learn of the infringement of their reserve, with an absolute cut-off of ten years from the date of death. The Cour de cassation has confirmed that these time limits are subject to interruption and suspension under ordinary rules: the filing of a référé (interim application) to appoint an expert interrupts the five-year period, and the period is then suspended while the expert carries out their mission (Cass. 1re civ., 10 Dec. 2025, no. 23-20.674). In practical terms, a forced heir can challenge a distribution many years after the death.
The Cour de cassation treats the réserve héréditaire as a matter of ordre public (public policy). Any attempt to circumvent it through sham transactions is void. In a published decision of 30 November 2022, the Court ruled that a court of appeal could not validate a revocation of a donation without examining whether the real motivation — the cause of the transaction — was to “contourner les dispositions d’ordre public de l’article 922 du code civil” — to circumvent the public-policy provisions of Article 922 of the Code civil (Cass. 1re civ., 30 Nov. 2022, no. 21-11.507, Publié au Bulletin). The Court has further refined this principle in a decision of 10 June 2026, emphasising that a libéralité (gift) requires an actual impoverishment of the donor — a sham transaction that merely restructures ownership without genuine divestment will not withstand scrutiny (Cass. 1re civ., 10 June 2026, no. 24-10.363).
B. The Droit de Prélèvement Compensatoire (DPC): France’s 2021 Counter-Measure
In 2015, the European Union adopted Regulation (EU) No 650/2012, commonly known as Brussels IV, which came into force on 17 August 2015. The regulation allows a person making a will to elect the law of their nationality to govern their entire succession. For a British national, this meant choosing English law — and thus English testamentary freedom — even for assets located in France. The French legislature viewed this as an unacceptable circumvention of its forced heirship policy.
In response, France amended Article 913 of the Code civil in 2021 to introduce the droit de prélèvement compensatoire (DPC). The mechanism operates when three conditions are met: the deceased or at least one of their children was, at the time of death, a national of an EU Member State or habitually resident in one; the foreign law applicable to the succession provides no protective mechanism for children equivalent to the French réserve; and there are assets located in France. When all three conditions are satisfied, a child may claim a compensatory levy on those French-sited assets to restore the forced heirship rights they would have enjoyed under French law.
Multiple complaints were lodged with the European Commission arguing that the DPC breached Brussels IV. In July 2026, the French authorities issued a formal response to the Commission, clarifying the intended scope of the DPC. As reported by Farrer & Co, a leading London law firm, the key point of this clarification is that the DPC only applies where the foreign governing law provides no mechanism at all for the protection of children. The French authorities explicitly acknowledged that Anglo-Saxon family provision laws — such as the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 in England and Wales — qualify as a child-protection mechanism that may take an estate outside the DPC’s reach.
This is significant but not decisive. Three uncertainties persist. First, the 1975 Act only applies where the deceased died domiciled in England and Wales; a British national domiciled in France at death may not benefit from the exemption. Second, France continues to treat forced heirship as a matter of public policy and expressly reserves a residual power to intervene. Third, the exemption turns on the presence of child-protection mechanisms in the chosen governing law — it is far from certain that an election for US state law (many of which have no equivalent to the 1975 Act) would avoid the DPC.
The DPC thus remains a live risk for foreign owners of French property, particularly those from jurisdictions whose testamentary freedom is not tempered by family provision statutes comparable to the 1975 Act. The July 2026 clarification narrows the threat for Anglo-Welsh estates but leaves American, Australian, and many other non-EU estates fully exposed.
II. Practical Consequences for Foreign Owners of French Real Estate
A. How French Courts Apply Forced Heirship to International Estates
The starting point for any succession involving French real estate is Article 3 of the Code civil, which states: “Les immeubles, même ceux possédés par des étrangers, sont régis par la loi française” — real property, even that owned by foreigners, is governed by French law (Art. 3 C. civ.). Under the pre-Brussels IV conflict-of-laws rules, which continue to apply to deaths occurring before 17 August 2015, French courts applied a scissionist principle: movable succession was governed by the law of the deceased’s last domicile, while immovable succession was governed by the law of the place where the property was located. The Tribunal judiciaire de Paris recently applied this rule in a case involving the estate of an Ivorian national who died in 1995 owning a Paris apartment, holding that the French real property was governed by French succession law (TJ Paris, 13 Jan. 2026, no. 19/04376).
For deaths occurring on or after 17 August 2015, Brussels IV applies and introduces the principle of unity of succession: a single law governs the entire estate, movable and immovable, wherever the assets are located. That law is, by default, the law of the State where the deceased had their résidence habituelle (habitual residence) at the time of death (Article 21). The determination of habitual residence is a holistic assessment taking into account “la durée et la régularité de la présence du défunt dans l’État concerné ainsi que les conditions et les raisons de cette présence” — the duration and regularity of the deceased’s presence in the State concerned and the conditions and reasons for that presence. The Tribunal judiciaire de Paris recently applied this test in a case involving a Franco-Lebanese national who had lived and worked in Dubai for over thirty years. The court found his habitual residence to be in the UAE, despite his French nationality, his ownership of a Paris property, and the fact that he died in France while receiving medical treatment (TJ Paris, 28 May 2026, no. 23/08610).
A particularly instructive case for British owners was decided by the Tribunal judiciaire de Poitiers on 28 April 2026. The deceased, a British national who had acquired a property in France and was habitually resident there at the time of death, had made a will under English law, which contains no forced heirship reserve. The court applied Brussels IV and held that French law governed the entire succession because the deceased’s habitual residence was in France and there was no evidence that he had either maintained closer links with the UK (Article 21(2) exception) or made a professio juris (choice of law) in favour of English law under Article 22. The judgment states unequivocally: “la loi britannique qui ne dispose d’aucune réserve, n’est pas applicable” — British law, which provides for no reserve, is not applicable. The result: a daughter whom the deceased had sought to disinherit was recognised as a forced heir under French law (TJ Poitiers, 28 Apr. 2026, no. 25/01628).
This case illustrates a hard truth for foreign property owners: moving to France and making it your habitual residence, even while retaining your original nationality, will generally subject your entire worldwide estate — and certainly your French real property — to the French forced heirship regime. The election of your national law under Article 22 of Brussels IV offers a potential escape, but that election must be made expressly in a will, and its effectiveness against the DPC remains uncertain for non-UK nationals.
For deaths occurring before 17 August 2015, the traditional scissionist approach still governs. The Tribunal judiciaire de Saint-Étienne, in a decision of 18 March 2025, summarised the principle: “le droit international privé français applicable aux successions ouvertes avant le 17 août 2015 connaît le principe scissionniste et distingue les successions mobilières soumises à la loi du domicile du défunt et les successions immobilières soumises à la loi du lieu de situation des biens” — movable succession is governed by the law of the deceased’s domicile, immovable succession by the lex rei sitae (TJ Saint-Étienne, 18 Mar. 2025, no. 24/00018). This means that a French property owned by a non-resident who died before August 2015 will be subject to French forced heirship regardless of the deceased’s nationality or domicile.
The calculation of the réserve itself requires the réunion fictive (notional reconstitution) of all lifetime gifts into the estate, as prescribed by Article 922 of the Code civil: “Les biens dont il a été disposé par donation entre vifs sont fictivement réunis à cette masse, d’après leur état à l’époque de la donation et leur valeur à l’ouverture de la succession” — assets disposed of by lifetime gift are notionally reunited with the estate (Art. 922 C. civ.). A parent who has made substantial lifetime gifts to one child may find that those gifts eat into that child’s share of the réserve, leaving room for other children to claim — or, conversely, that gifts exceeding the quotité disponible trigger a reduction claim from their siblings.
B. Structuring Your French Property Ownership to Protect Your Estate Plan
Given the robustness of the French forced heirship regime and the continuing uncertainty surrounding the DPC, foreign buyers of French real estate should consider their ownership structure before acquisition, not after. Several tools are available, each with its own legal and tax implications.
The société civile immobilière (SCI). A French property-holding company converts ownership of real estate into ownership of shares in a company. This matters for succession because shares are movable property (biens meubles), not immovable property. Under pre-Brussels IV rules, movable succession is governed by the law of the deceased’s domicile, not the lex rei sitae. Under Brussels IV, the succession to the shares is subject to the same unitary law as the rest of the estate — so an SCI does not circumvent the governing law — but it can significantly simplify administration and facilitate the gradual transfer of shares during the owner’s lifetime through donation-partage (partitioned gifts). We have examined the SCI structure in detail in a previous article (SCI for Foreign Buyers: The French Property Company Explained).
The professio juris under Article 22 of Brussels IV. A foreign national who makes a will expressly choosing the law of their nationality to govern their succession can, in principle, opt out of French forced heirship for all assets except those protected by the DPC. This election must be explicit — it cannot be inferred — and it should be made with awareness of the DPC risk. For British nationals, the July 2026 DPC clarification offers some reassurance: if the deceased was domiciled in England and Wales, the 1975 Act’s family provision mechanism may shield the estate from a DPC claim. For US and Australian nationals, no comparable reassurance exists, and the DPC remains a significant risk.
Lifetime gifts (donations). French law permits lifetime gifts that can be used to transfer property to chosen beneficiaries during the donor’s lifetime. A donation-partage (partitioned gift) allows a parent to distribute assets among their children with immediate effect, fixing the value of each child’s share at the date of the gift rather than at the date of death. The Cour de cassation’s vigilance against sham transactions, however, means that gifts must be genuine, irrevocable transfers of ownership — not arrangements that preserve de facto control while purporting to divest. A real estate lawyer practising in French property law can advise on whether a proposed gift structure will withstand judicial scrutiny. The real estate law team at Kohen Avocats regularly advises non-resident clients on cross-border succession planning for French property.
The tontine clause (purchase with accretion). A clause tontine or pacte tontinier allows two or more purchasers to buy a property jointly with a survivorship clause: when one co-purchaser dies, the survivor(s) automatically become the sole owner(s) by accretion, without the property passing through the deceased’s estate. This can be an effective tool for married couples or civil partners who wish the survivor to inherit the entire property, bypassing forced heirship entirely — because the property never enters the deceased’s succession. However, tontine clauses trigger specific tax treatment and may be challenged if used to defraud forced heirs, so professional advice is essential.
French real estate purchase by a foreign trust or foreign company. Some advisors suggest that a foreign trust or a company incorporated in a common-law jurisdiction can hold French real estate and thereby insulate it from French forced heirship. This is a high-risk strategy. French law does not recognise the common-law trust, and French courts may recharacterise the arrangement as a direct ownership for succession purposes. Similarly, a foreign company holding French real estate may be subject to the French 3% annual tax on property owned through foreign entities unless certain disclosure requirements are met. The Cour de cassation’s 2022 and 2026 decisions on sham transactions demonstrate the judiciary’s willingness to look through formal structures to the economic reality.
Purchasing en viager (life annuity sale). This structure, in which the buyer pays a lump sum and a monthly annuity to the seller until the seller’s death, removes the property from the seller’s estate because the sale is complete at the outset — the seller no longer owns the property. For foreign buyers, this can be a way to acquire property that will not be entangled in the seller’s succession. For foreign sellers, however, it may be less attractive because it deprives them of the asset during their lifetime.
Cross-border marriage regimes. A foreign couple acquiring French property may consider electing a matrimonial regime that favours the surviving spouse. Under French private international law, a change of matrimonial regime during the marriage is possible under certain conditions, and the regime can include a clause de préciput (survivorship clause) or a clause d’attribution intégrale (full attribution to the survivor). The interaction between the matrimonial regime and forced heirship is complex and fact-specific, but it is one of the most effective tools for protecting a surviving spouse.
None of these techniques is a silver bullet. Each has costs, tax consequences, and vulnerabilities. The common thread is that early planning — ideally before the purchase contract is signed — is far more effective than attempting to restructure an existing direct ownership after the fact.
Conclusion
The French forced heirship regime is one of the most consequential legal differences that foreign property buyers encounter — and one of the most frequently overlooked until it is too late. The réserve héréditaire limits testamentary freedom in ways that can frustrate the estate planning objectives of buyers from common-law jurisdictions, particularly those who wish to provide primarily for a surviving spouse or who have children from multiple relationships. The July 2026 DPC clarification offers a measure of relief for Anglo-Welsh estates governed by English law under a Brussels IV election, but the relief is partial and conditional. For buyers from the United States, Australia, and other jurisdictions without statutory family provision mechanisms comparable to the 1975 Act, the DPC remains a live risk that must be factored into any acquisition of French real estate. The available structuring tools — the SCI, the professio juris, lifetime donations-partages, the tontine, cross-border matrimonial regimes — offer meaningful protection when implemented early and with professional guidance. The alternative is to discover, years after the purchase and perhaps only after a death in the family, that French law has rewritten your estate plan in ways you never intended.