Your husband, wife or partner has died in France, and the money you lived on sits in a French bank. You go to the cash machine, or you open the banking app, and the account is blocked. The adviser tells you the file has gone to the succession department, the service successions, and that nothing can move until the estate, the succession, is sorted. If you held a joint account, a compte joint, the answer is different but only partly reassuring: the account normally stays open, yet half of the balance is presumed to belong to the estate, the tax office watches, and any co-heir can freeze the position by raising an objection, an opposition. This guide explains, on the texts in force on 2 October 2026, what the bank must do in the first days, whose money the law presumes the balance to be, which papers prove your half of the balance, how to answer an heir opposition, and how a British survivor gets money released and challenges a blockage. Every French term is explained at first use. It does not replace the letter in your hand, and only the court hearing your case decides that case.

Brexit changed nothing in these rules and a great deal in your position. The banking and succession rules are the same for every resident, but a British survivor is now a third-country national dealing with a French bank that must identify every heir, a French notary, a notaire, who settles the estate, and sometimes a British will, a British grant of probate and British bank statements that must be translated and fitted into the French file. Since the end of free movement, banks apply the identification checks with visible zeal, and files that mix French and English papers take longer. The pages below follow the order in which problems reach you: the blockage in the first days, the proof of whose money it is, the file that releases the funds, and the ladder of challenge when the bank or a co-heir says no, including what changes if you live in Paris or elsewhere in the Île-de-France region.

Three distinctions carry the whole subject. An account in the sole name of the deceased is blocked. A joint account with solidarity, a compte joint avec solidarité, in which each holder may use the whole balance alone, stays open unless the heirs object. An undivided account, a compte indivis, in which all holders must sign together, is blocked at once. Behind those mechanics sit two presumptions: between the holders, money on a joint account is presumed to belong to them in shared ownership, indivision, and for inheritance tax half is presumed to belong to the person who died. Both presumptions can be rebutted, but only with documents, and the documents must be gathered while the bank holds the file open.

I. Frozen by the bank or frozen by the heirs: what an opposition on your French joint account does

A. Blocked sole accounts, surviving joint accounts, and the heirs who can still freeze everything

The official English-language guidance on what happens to a bank account in case of death states the starting map. As soon as the bank learns of the death, it blocks every account of which the deceased was the sole holder: current accounts, booklet savings and savings accounts alike. The block is automatic. Certain operations still pass within the funds available on the day of death: transfers arriving from third parties, such as a pension paid before the paying body learned of the death, and direct debits for expenses the holder had committed before death by card, cheque or transfer. After death the accounts may be unlocked for a closed list of expenses, paid by direct debit within the funds available and within the limit of 5,965 euros. Funeral costs are the classic example. Nothing else leaves a sole account until the estate file moves.

Small estates have a simplified exit. The same official page explains that if the balance is below 5,965 euros and the estate includes no property, one heir alone may close the account. Above that line, or wherever the estate includes a house or flat, a formal proof of heirship must be drawn up by a notary and sent to the bank before anything is closed. That proof is the acte de notoriété, the notarial deed that lists who inherits, described below. The bank is entitled to charge succession fees for its own work: inventorying the funds, checking the powers and identity of the heirs, and transferring the money. Those fees appear on almost every file, they vary between banks, and since 2025 the public fee schedules have been under visible political pressure, but they remain payable in 2026.

The joint account follows the opposite starting rule. The same official guidance states that the joint account remains open except on objection by the heirs of the deceased co-holder. The survivor keeps the chequebook, the card and the transfer rights, and daily life can continue. Two limits frame that freedom. First, the share belonging to the deceased is fixed when the estate is settled, so money spent after death is spent on account of a balance that may later be re-characterised. Second, any heir of the deceased holder may lodge an opposition, a formal objection, and the bank then freezes disputed operations until the heirs agree or a court or notary settles the point. In blended families, where children from a first marriage watch a step-parent who holds the joint account, that objection arrives fast. The official page on the joint account adds the mechanics that explain why banks treat the survivor as fully empowered until that moment: each co-holder may act alone on the account without the authorisation of the other, and names on statements and chequebooks are joined by the word or, ou. Mr X or Mrs Y means either signature moves the whole balance.

The undivided account is the trap for British couples who chose it for safety. Where the joint account works on either signature, the undivided account requires all signatures together. The official guidance states that as soon as the bank is told of the death of one undivided holder, by relatives or by the notary, it blocks the account automatically. Nothing moves without the agreement of everyone, which in practice means nothing moves until the estate is settled. Couples who opened an undivided account years ago to prevent either partner spending alone discover at the worst moment that the protection works against the survivor too. If your bank papers say compte indivis rather than compte joint, expect a full block and organise daily money elsewhere at once.

Two accessory points complete the first-days map. Powers of attorney, procurations, granted on the accounts or on a safe-deposit box end with death. The Civil Code provides: “Le mandat finit : Par la révocation du mandataire, Par la renonciation de celui-ci au mandat, Par la mort, la tutelle des majeurs ou la déconfiture, soit du mandant, soit du mandataire” (official text of Article 2003 of the Civil Code). A mandate ends with, among other events, the death of either the giver or the holder. A son or daughter who helped an ageing parent with a procuration cannot use it after death, and any payment made under it afterwards can be reclaimed. The Paris Court of Appeal confirmed the practical consequence in a family dispute over a mother’s accounts, ordering the children who had held procurations to disclose years of statements to their siblings under a daily penalty: post-death transparency is enforced, not requested. As for safes, the bank blocks access to a box rented by the deceased alone, while a box linked to a joint account is not blocked, though the guidance recommends asking for it to be sealed and inventoried in the presence of the heirs and the co-renter to protect everyone.

Behind the counters, the bank also reports. The Tax Code provides: “Les administrations publiques, les établissements ou organismes quelconques soumis au contrôle de l’autorité administrative, les sociétés ou compagnies, prestataires de services d’investissement autres que des sociétés de gestion de portefeuille, changeurs, banquiers, escompteurs, officiers publics ou ministériels ou agents d’affaires qui seraient dépositaires, détenteurs ou débiteurs de titres, sommes ou valeurs dépendant d’une succession qu’ils sauraient ouverte doivent adresser, soit avant le paiement, la remise ou le transfert, soit dans la quinzaine qui suit ces opérations, à l’autorité compétente de l’Etat de leur département de résidence, la liste de ces titres, sommes ou valeurs” (official text of Article 806 of the General Tax Code). Depositaries who hold estate assets they know to depend on an open succession must send the list to the competent authority, before or within a fortnight after payment, handover or transfer. Your bank therefore tells the tax office what it held. Do not expect discretion about balances, and do not file a succession declaration that contradicts the bank’s list.

B. Presumed half yours, presumed half theirs: the two presumptions that decide the balance and how to rebut them

The first presumption governs relations between the holders. The Civil Code closes its separation-of-property chapter with a fallback: “Les biens sur lesquels aucun des époux ne peut justifier d’une propriété exclusive sont réputés leur appartenir indivisément, à chacun pour moitié” (official text of Article 1538 of the Civil Code). Property over which neither spouse can prove exclusive ownership is deemed to belong to them in shared ownership, half each. The courts extend the reasoning to joint accounts generally. On 9 September 2026 the First Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, the Cour de cassation, restated the rule in a divorce case that succession practitioners now cite for estates as well: “Vu les articles 864 et suivants, 1538, alinéa 3, du code civil :” (official text of Court of Cassation, First Civil Chamber, 9 September 2026, No 24-11.144 (ECLI:FR:CCASS:2026:C100520)). Having cited those articles, the Court continued: “Il résulte du dernier de ces textes que les sommes figurant sur un compte joint ouvert aux noms de deux époux séparés de biens sont présumées leur appartenir en indivision, sauf preuve contraire, et des premiers que l’indivisaire qui a prélevé des fonds indivis est tenu de les restituer à la masse à partager, l’indivision étant à ce titre titulaire d’une créance à son encontre” (same official decision). Sums on a joint account in the names of two spouses under separation of property are presumed to belong to them in shared ownership unless the contrary is proved, and a co-owner who has drawn shared funds must return them to the mass to be shared, with the shared ownership holding a claim against that person. For a British survivor, the message is symmetrical. Half is yours by presumption, but if you can prove that all the money came from your own salary, your own sale proceeds or your own pension, you may keep more than half; if the children prove that all of it came from the deceased, you may keep less.

The second presumption is fiscal and runs in the same direction. The Tax Code provides: “Tous les titres, sommes ou valeurs existant chez les dépositaires désignés à l’article 806 I, et faisant l’objet de comptes indivis ou collectifs avec solidarité sont considérés, pour la perception des droits de mutation par décès, comme appartenant conjointement aux déposants et dépendant de la succession de chacun d’eux, pour une part virile, sauf preuve contraire réservée tant à l’administration qu’aux redevables, et résultant pour ces derniers soit des énonciations du contrat de dépôt, soit des titres prévus par le 2° de l’article 773” (official text of Article 753 of the General Tax Code). All securities, sums or valuables held by the depositaries named in Article 806 I under undivided or collective accounts with solidarity are treated, for death duties, as belonging jointly to the depositors and as depending on each one’s succession for a virile share, subject to contrary proof available both to the administration and to the taxpayers, resulting for the latter either from the terms of the deposit contract or from the instruments listed in Article 773(2). A virile share, part virile, means an equal per-head share: half for two holders. The commercial chamber of the Court of Cassation gave the provision its teeth on 19 January 2010: “Vu l’article 753 du code général des impôts ;” (official text of Court of Cassation, Commercial Chamber, 19 January 2010, No 09-12.140 (ECLI:FR:CCASS:2010:CO00069)), then: “Attendu que la présomption simple de division par parts viriles du solde des comptes joints entre les titulaires de ce compte prévue par l’article 753 du code général des impôts (CGI) peut être combattue par l’administration fiscale si elle démontre que les sommes figurant sur les comptes litigieux proviennent exclusivement de dépôts effectués par le défunt ;” (same official decision). The simple presumption of per-head division of joint-account balances under Article 753 may be rebutted by the tax administration where it shows the sums came exclusively from deposits made by the deceased. In that case the administration had reintegrated the second half into the estate because the late husband alone had earned and funded the accounts, and the Court of Cassation quashed the appeal judgment that had refused the reassessment on sentimental grounds about the wife’s adaptation to her husband’s career. Proof of exclusive funding beats sympathy.

Rebutting either presumption is a document exercise, and British files have specific strengths and weaknesses. The deposit contract itself comes first: some joint-account agreements state the shares, for example 70-30 reflecting salaries, and the tax presumption expressly yields to the contract’s terms. Failing that, the money trail decides: twelve to twenty-four months of statements before death showing whose salary, pension or sale proceeds fed the account, whose withdrawals served the household, and whether a large British transfer just before death was a gift, a loan or the proceeds of a Manchester sale parked in France. A British survivor who can show that the joint balance came entirely from a UK pension paid into the survivor’s sole account then swept across, or from the sale of the survivor’s London flat, keeps the corresponding part out of the estate. Conversely, where the deceased alone funded the account while the survivor never worked in France, the administration and the children will claim the whole balance, and the survivor’s answer must be a gift, a contribution to the household, or a matrimonial advantage, each with its paper. Assertions about who paid for the shopping never win; dated transfers do.

Two British complications recur. First, the matrimonial regime, the régime matrimonial, changes what the account means. Spouses married in England without a contract who settled in France are commonly treated as separated as to property for French purposes in the bank’s eyes, unless a notary has characterised their regime, while spouses under a French community own the household money jointly whatever its source. Before arguing about halves, ask the notary to state the applicable regime in writing, because the children will. Readers who need the full picture on that prior question will find it in our analysis of which matrimonial regime owns the house on divorce or death. Second, currency and origin: sterling transfers from a UK bank, Premium Bond winnings, or an inheritance received in London and moved to the French joint account keep their separate character only if the trail is complete. A single unexplained transfer of 60,000 pounds three months before death, with the UK account now closed, is the fact pattern that funds reassessments. Keep both sides’ statements, the foreign-exchange slips, and the solicitor’s completion statement together.

II. Getting money released despite the opposition: proof of your half, mediator and court

A. The papers that unlock the funds: death certificate, notarial deed of heirship, and the survivor who must open an account of their own

The bank releases nothing substantial without proof of who inherits. French law is liberal about the means but strict about the result. The Civil Code provides: “La preuve de la qualité d’héritier s’établit par tous moyens. Il n’est pas dérogé aux dispositions ni aux usages concernant la délivrance de certificats de propriété ou d’hérédité par des autorités judiciaires ou administratives” (official text of Article 730 of the Civil Code). Proof of heirship may be established by any means, without prejudice to the rules and practices on certificates of ownership or heirship issued by judicial or administrative authorities. In practice banks want one document above all: the acte de notoriété. The Civil Code provides: “La preuve de la qualité d’héritier peut résulter d’un acte de notoriété dressé par un notaire, à la demande d’un ou plusieurs ayants droit. L’acte de notoriété doit viser l’acte de décès de la personne dont la succession est ouverte et faire mention des pièces justificatives qui ont pu être produites, tels les actes de l’état civil et, éventuellement, les documents qui concernent l’existence de libéralités à cause de mort pouvant avoir une incidence sur la dévolution successorale. Il contient l’affirmation, signée du ou des ayants droit auteurs de la demande, qu’ils ont vocation, seuls ou avec d’autres qu’ils désignent, à recueillir tout ou partie de la succession du défunt” (official text of Article 730-1 of the Civil Code). Proof of heirship may result from a deed of notoriety drawn up by a notary at the request of one or more entitled persons; it must cite the death certificate, list the supporting papers such as civil-status records and any lifetime gifts affecting devolution, and contain the signed affirmation of the claimants that they are called to take all or part of the estate, alone or with others they name. For a British survivor that means: the French or British death certificate, the marriage certificate with a sworn translation, the birth certificates of the children, any English will with a translation and, where the deceased owned property in England, the grant of probate. The notary checks, the heirs sign, and the deed is sent to the bank. Without it, balances above 5,965 euros and any file with property stay shut.

Behind the deed stands the vesting rule. The Civil Code provides: “Les héritiers désignés par la loi sont saisis de plein droit des biens, droits et actions du défunt. Les légataires et donataires universels sont saisis dans les conditions prévues au titre II du présent livre. A leur défaut, la succession est acquise à l’Etat, qui doit se faire envoyer en possession” (official text of Article 724 of the Civil Code). Heirs designated by law are seised as of right of the property, rights and actions of the deceased. Saisine, seising, means the heir steps into the deceased’s shoes without a court order. The bank knows this, which is why it asks for the deed rather than a judgment. But seising does not mean immediate division: until the estate is wound up, the heirs own the frozen half together in shared ownership. The Civil Code adds the exit: “Nul ne peut être contraint à demeurer dans l’indivision et le partage peut toujours être provoqué, à moins qu’il n’y ait été sursis par jugement ou convention” (official text of Article 815 of the Civil Code). No one may be forced to remain in shared ownership, and division may always be sought unless stayed by judgment or agreement. A survivor who wants the whole balance, or children who want the survivor’s hand off it, may each force a division, through the notary first and the court if needed.

The surviving spouse has a further card where the couple owned or rented the home. The Civil Code provides: “Sauf volonté contraire du défunt exprimée dans les conditions de l’article 971 , le conjoint successible qui occupait effectivement, à l’époque du décès, à titre d’habitation principale, un logement appartenant aux époux ou dépendant totalement de la succession, a sur ce logement, jusqu’à son décès, un droit d’habitation et un droit d’usage sur le mobilier, compris dans la succession, le garnissant” (official text of Article 764 of the Civil Code). Unless the deceased expressed a contrary wish in the form required for wills, the succeeding spouse who actually occupied, at the time of death, as a main home, accommodation belonging to the spouses or depending entirely on the succession, holds over that accommodation until death a right of habitation, with a right of use over its furnishings. The housing right does not release bank money directly, but it changes negotiations: children pressing for an immediate sale of the balance and the home face a spouse who may stay for life. The full mechanics of that protection, with the one-year claim deadline and the valuation of the lifelong right, are set out in our guide to what the British surviving spouse inherits and how to keep the home, and the bank file should cross-refer to it wherever the survivor’s housing costs must keep being paid from the joint account.

British papers need a French shape to work. An English will that chooses English law for the estate is in principle recognised under the European Succession Regulation for the French assets, and our pillar analysis of choosing English law and protecting the children explains the choice and its limits. But a choice of English law does not dispense with the French deed: the bank wants the acte de notoriété, not a lecture on Rome. Likewise the European Certificate of Succession, the certificat successoral européen, circulates between EU Member States, and since Brexit a British-issued certificate does not circulate as such; the French notary builds the French proof from British originals with sworn translations, and where needed asks the British solicitor for an affidavit of English law. Practical tip from Paris files: have the translator stamp the will, the grant and the marriage certificate as one bundle with continuous pagination, so the bank cannot claim a page is missing. And where relations with the children are strained, ask the notary to issue the deed on your sole request: the text allows one entitled person alone to apply.

Finally, organise money for the months the file takes. The survivor who lived entirely on the joint account should open an individual account at once and redirect pension and transfer inflows to it. The Monetary and Financial Code provides: “I. – A droit à l’ouverture d’un compte de dépôt dans l’établissement de crédit de son choix, sous réserve d’être dépourvu d’un tel compte en France : 1° Toute personne physique ou morale domiciliée en France ; 2° Toute personne physique résidant légalement sur le territoire d’un autre Etat membre de l’Union européenne n’agissant pas pour des besoins professionnels ainsi que toute personne physique de nationalité française résidant hors de France. La détention d’un compte collectif par une personne physique mentionnée au présent article ne fait pas obstacle au droit à l’ouverture d’un compte individuel dans les conditions prévues au présent article” (official text of Article L312-1 of the Monetary and Financial Code). There is a right to open a deposit account with the bank of one’s choice for, among others, any natural or legal person domiciled in France, and holding a collective account does not bar the right to open an individual account. A British resident in France holds that right; a non-resident survivor with only a French second home uses the ordinary account-opening route with full identification. Either way, stop paying household bills from a disputed joint balance once an opposition is lodged: every post-objection withdrawal becomes an exhibit.

B. Challenging a blockage step by step: bank complaint, mediator, notary, and the court, with Paris practice

Challenge in the right order, because each step creates the paper the next one needs. Start inside the bank. Write to the succession department by registered letter or secure message, list the account numbers, attach the death certificate and, when available, the acte de notoriété, and ask for three dated answers: the legal ground of the block, the list of documents still missing, and the date of release once they arrive. Ask separately for the provisional payments the guidance allows: funeral invoice, last rent, home-insurance premium. Keep every reply. Banks answer written complaints through a quality unit within weeks, while telephone promises leave no trace. If the reply invokes an heir’s opposition, demand a copy of it: an undated telephone remark from a stepchild is not an objection, a signed letter is.

Next, the banking mediator, the médiateur bancaire. Every French bank designates one, and referral is free of charge for the customer once the internal complaint has failed, usually after two months or an express refusal. The mediator gives a reasoned opinion within about three months. Opinions do not bind like judgments, but banks follow most of them, and a favourable opinion transforms the later court file. Frame the referral narrowly: sole account or joint account, exact balance on the day of death, exact deed supplied, exact ground refused. Attach the statements showing the origin of the funds where the dispute is about halves. Where the dispute is really between heirs rather than with the bank, say so plainly and ask the mediator to record that the bank holds the funds at everyone’s disposal pending the notary’s instructions; that wording often unblocks the file without deciding the merits.

Parallel to the bank track, work the notary track, because only the estate file ends the story. Instruct the notary in writing to settle the account point: confirm the nature of the account from the deposit contract, state the matrimonial regime, take a position on the half presumption with the money trail, and write to the bank accordingly. Where an heir blocks abusively, the notary convenes, proposes division under Article 815, and records refusals. Where the balance is modest and there is no property, remind the bank of the 5,965-euro simplified route with civil-status documents only. Where the bank demands British papers it has no right to require, such as a French probate for English-only assets irrelevant to the French balance, push back in writing and offer the sworn translation of what matters. Notaries in cross-Channel files know the pattern; what they need from you is completeness, not insistence.

If both tracks stall, the court decides. For payment of a clear balance to a proved heir, the fast route is summary proceedings before the president of the judicial court, the tribunal judiciaire, asking for release of funds with proof of heirship and urgency: blocked daily money, mortgage arrears, care-home fees. For the merits of halves, the ordinary route is an action for division, partage, joining all heirs, with the bank called to declare what it holds. Plead in this order: nature of the account from the contract, presumption and its rebuttal with the statements, then the fiscal consequence. Courts apply the 2026 presumption language quoted above and the 2010 fiscal holding: whoever claims more or less than half proves the exclusive origin. Bring the translator’s bundle, the twelve-month trails on both sides, and the deposit contract. Ask for interest from the formal demand and for the costs of the unnecessary blockage where the bank maintained it after a complete file.

Paris and Île-de-France practice sharpens each step. If the deceased lived in Paris, the competent court is the Paris judicial court, with the notary commonly chosen among the Paris chamber; time limits for summonses and the handling of foreign documents follow the capital’s heavy caseload, so file early and serve complete bundles. For residents of the inner and outer suburbs, the court and the bank’s regional succession centre follow the department of residence, which matters for where to send the registered letter and where to summon. Paris files also concentrate two British profiles: the retired couple in the 16th arrondissement with a joint account fed by a UK pension in sterling, where the exchange slips decide halves, and the blended family with a Paris flat plus a London estate, where the children’s opposition arrives before the funeral. In both, the survivor who produces the contract, the trails and the deed within the first month is usually paid within the quarter; the survivor who telephones weekly without papers is still waiting at Christmas. Where the home itself is at stake alongside the account, coordinate the money claim with the housing right so that one negotiation covers both roof and balance.

Conclusion

A frozen bank balance after a death in France is not a verdict. Sole accounts block by design, joint accounts survive unless an heir objects, and undivided accounts block at once. Half of a joint balance is presumed to belong to the estate for both ownership and tax, under the twin presumptions the Court of Cassation restated in September 2026 and January 2010, and both presumptions yield to the deposit contract and to a complete money trail. Powers of attorney die with the holder, the bank reports to the tax office within a fortnight of paying out, and only the notary’s deed of heirship, built from death, marriage and will papers with sworn translations, releases substantial balances. Challenge in order: dated complaint to the bank, banking mediator, written instructions to the notary, then the court for release or division, pleading the account’s nature before its halves. Prepare that file in the first month, keep new money in a new individual account, and the balance that looked lost at the cash machine usually returns to the living.