France’s 2026 Indivision Reform: Unblocking Joint Property Ownership for Foreign Owners
On 7 April 2026, France enacted a reform that quietly reshapes one of the most persistent problems in French property law: the blocked co-ownership known as indivision. For foreign owners—whether British retirees with a holiday home inherited by three children, American investors who bought a Paris apartment with a business partner, or Australian expatriates who divorced and cannot agree on selling the family house near Nice—the new law introduces concrete mechanisms to break deadlocks that have, until now, sometimes dragged on for years or even decades. The French government estimates that 3.1 million homes stand vacant across the country, with approximately 22% of these attributed to blocked inheritance co-ownership.
This article examines the legal framework of indivision under the French Civil Code, analyses the key changes brought by the Law of 7 April 2026, sets out the procedural pathways now available to co-owners, and identifies the practical traps that foreign owners continue to face when navigating the French legal system.
For an overview of legal support available to international clients in French property matters, see our guide on French real estate law for international clients.
I. Understanding Indivision: The French Framework of Joint Ownership
A. What Indivision Means for Foreign Property Owners
Indivision is the legal regime under French law that arises when two or more persons hold ownership rights over the same property without any physical division between them. Unlike the Anglo-American concept of joint tenancy or tenancy in common—where the legal architecture and rights of survivorship differ significantly—French indivision means each co-owner (indivisaire) holds an undivided share expressed as a fraction of the whole, not a right to any specific room, floor, or parcel of land. A co-owner holding a 30% share does not own the kitchen and the guest bedroom; they own 30% of the entire property, conceptually and legally.
This regime arises in three scenarios that are especially common for foreign owners.
Inheritance. When a French property owner dies leaving multiple heirs—children, a surviving spouse, or both—the property enters indivision successorale automatically by operation of law. For foreign families where heirs live in different countries, speak different languages, and may have conflicting views about whether to keep or sell a holiday home they no longer visit, the deadlock can become entrenched. One heir may wish to sell and recover their share in cash; another may insist on retaining the property for sentimental reasons; a third may be unreachable or simply indifferent. Under the traditional unanimity rule, the sale of an immovable property—being a acte de disposition—required the consent of every single co-owner, regardless of their respective share sizes. The government estimates that approximately 22% of vacant properties across France are attributable to blocked inheritances, a figure that rises sharply in rural départements where properties may have belonged to large families spanning multiple generations and continents.
Joint purchase. Unmarried couples, friends, siblings, or business partners who buy a French property together become indivisaires by operation of law. Unlike married couples who may opt for the communauté regime, unmarried co-buyers hold the property in indivision, each owning a share corresponding to their financial contribution stated in the deed of sale (acte de vente). A convention d’indivision (indivision agreement) can be—and should be—executed before the notaire at the time of purchase, setting out rules for decision-making, cost-sharing, and exit. Such agreements are valid for a maximum of five years, renewable by mutual consent. Foreign buyers who neglect to execute an indivision agreement at the time of purchase are often surprised to discover, years later when a dispute arises, that the default rules of the Civil Code offer limited flexibility.
Divorce or separation. When a couple who bought property together separates, the property remains in indivision post-communautaire or indivision conventionnelle until the liquidation of the matrimonial regime is completed—a process that can take months or years, particularly when one party is uncooperative or when the property is located in France but the divorce proceedings take place in a foreign jurisdiction. The reformed Article 840 of the Civil Code now explicitly covers the liquidation of indivision between former cohabitants and pacsés partners, closing a gap that previously created procedural uncertainty.
The foundational principle of French law on this point is set out in Article 815 of the Civil Code, which states: « 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. » (Article 815, Code civil). This means: “No one may be compelled to remain in indivision, and partition may always be requested, unless a stay has been ordered by a court judgment or agreed by contract.” The right to exit indivision—the droit au partage—is imprescriptible: it cannot be lost through the passage of time, no matter how many years the property has sat in joint ownership. This principle alone, however, was not enough to overcome the procedural and practical obstacles that made exiting indivision so arduous before the reform.
B. The Pre-2026 Legal Landscape: Majority Rules and Blockages
Before the April 2026 reform, the Civil Code already provided several mechanisms for co-owners to manage—and ultimately exit—indivision. Understanding these baseline rules is essential because the reform builds on them rather than replacing them entirely.
Unanimity for dispositive acts. Under Article 815-3 of the Civil Code (Article 815-3, Code civil), the sale of an immovable property held in indivision required the unanimous consent of all co-owners. A single co-owner, holding even a minimal share—say, 10% after inheriting alongside nine siblings—could block the sale of a property indefinitely, and did so with complete legality. The right to veto was inherent in the very structure of indivision. By contrast, a qualified majority of two-thirds of the undivided rights sufficed for certain administrative acts: granting residential leases (but not commercial, industrial, or agricultural leases), selling movable property to pay indivision debts, and appointing a general administrator.
The two-thirds escape hatch. Article 815-5-1 of the Civil Code (Article 815-5-1, Code civil), introduced in earlier reforms, provided that co-owners holding at least two-thirds of the undivided rights could petition the tribunal judiciaire to authorise a forced sale (licitation), even against the will of the minority. The procedure required: (i) the majority co-owners to express their intention before a notaire; (ii) the notaire to serve notice on the dissenting co-owners within one month; (iii) a three-month waiting period for the minority to respond; and (iv) court authorisation, which could be granted only if the sale did not cause “excessive harm to the rights of the other co-owners” (« ne porte pas une atteinte excessive aux droits des autres indivisaires »). The sale then proceeded by public auction (licitation), and the proceeds—after payment of indivision debts—could not be reinvested by the majority except to discharge further indivision liabilities.
The common-interest override. Under Article 815-5 of the Civil Code (Article 815-5, Code civil), a co-owner could obtain judicial authorisation to undertake an act requiring the consent of another co-owner if that other co-owner’s refusal “endangers the common interest” (met en péril l’intérêt commun). However, the text imposed an important limitation: « Le juge ne peut, à la demande d’un nu-propriétaire, ordonner la vente de la pleine propriété d’un bien grevé d’usufruit contre la volonté de l’usufruitier. » This means the court cannot order the sale of full ownership of a property encumbered by a life interest (usufruit) against the will of the usufructuary—a common situation when a surviving spouse retains the right to occupy the property while the children hold the bare ownership (nue-propriété).
These provisions, while not ineffective, suffered from two structural weaknesses when applied to foreign-owned property. First, the threshold of two-thirds was often unreachable: in many inheritance scenarios involving three or four heirs, no single heir or group held a supermajority. Second, the procedures were slow, expensive, and required physical presence before a French notaire—a logistical challenge for co-owners residing in London, New York, or Sydney.
Conservation measures. Article 815-2 of the Civil Code (Article 815-2, Code civil) allows any co-owner to take “measures necessary for the conservation of the indivisible property” even without urgency and without the consent of the others, including the use of indivision funds for this purpose. This means a co-owner living abroad can at least ensure the property is insured and basic maintenance is performed, though this does not resolve the underlying deadlock.
The Cour de cassation has consistently reminded lower courts that licitation—the forced judicial sale of indivisible property—is an exceptional measure that must be justified by the impossibility of partition in kind. In a notable decision of 5 February 2025, the First Civil Chamber ruled that « la licitation des immeubles indivis ne doit être ordonnée que s’ils ne peuvent être facilement partagés en nature » (Cass. 1re civ., 5 Feb. 2025, no. 21-15.932, Publié au Bulletin). The court censured a decision of the Lyon Court of Appeal that had ordered the forced sale of several immovable properties solely because the co-owners disagreed on the method of partition—without first examining whether the properties could be conveniently divided in kind. This ruling underscores a fundamental principle: French courts cannot order a fire sale of the family home simply because the heirs are arguing. The judge must first determine whether a physical division of the property is possible, and only if it is not—which will almost always be the case for a single apartment or house—may a forced sale be ordered.
In an earlier decision of 15 January 2025, the First Civil Chamber had already signalled a willingness to enforce partition against obstructive behaviour. In that case, the court upheld the opening of judicial liquidation proceedings where a co-owner had consistently failed to cooperate over a period of years, despite the intervention of a legal professional explaining the parties’ obligations (Cass. 1re civ., 15 Jan. 2025, no. 22-22.755). The April 2026 reform codifies and reinforces this judicial approach.
II. The April 2026 Reform: New Tools to Exit Joint Ownership
A. Strengthened Judicial Powers Under the Reformed Article 815-6
The Law no. 2026-248 of 7 April 2026 (Loi n° 2026-248 du 7 avril 2026), entitled “Law aiming to simplify the exit from indivision and the management of vacant successions,” introduces several modifications to the Civil Code that strengthen the hand of a co-owner seeking to break a deadlock. The law was adopted by the National Assembly on 6 March 2025 and, after examination and amendment by the Senate on 18 December 2025, received its final vote and was promulgated by the President of the Republic on 7 April 2026.
The centrepiece of the reform is the amendment to Article 815-6 of the Civil Code (Article 815-6, Code civil, as amended). The amended text adds an explicit power for the president of the tribunal judiciaire, acting in summary proceedings (procédure accélérée au fond), to “authorise a co-owner to conclude alone a sale deed for an indivisible property” (« autoriser un indivisaire à conclure seul un acte de vente d’un bien indivis »).
This is a significant procedural innovation. Before the reform, even if a co-owner obtained a court order authorising a sale, the other co-owners’ signatures were still required on the final deed—or the sale had to proceed through the lengthy, costly, and public auction process of licitation. Under the new regime, a single co-owner can, with judicial authorisation obtained through accelerated proceedings, sign the acte de vente alone before the notaire, and the sale is legally effective against all co-owners, including those who refused to participate. The dissenting co-owner is protected by the requirement of judicial scrutiny: the court must verify that the sale is in the common interest and that it does not cause disproportionate harm to the minority. But the minority can no longer paralyse the process by simply refusing to sign.
The reform also modifies Article 840 of the Civil Code (Article 840, Code civil, as amended), which now provides that judicial partition is available not only when a co-owner refuses amicable partition or when disputes arise about the method of partition, but explicitly extends the court’s jurisdiction over the liquidation and settlement of indivision interests between former spouses, persons linked by a civil solidarity pact (pacte civil de solidarité or PACS), and former cohabitants. This extension is significant for the growing number of unmarried foreign couples who purchase property in France and later separate: the streamlined judicial procedure now covers them without procedural ambiguity.
Additionally, Articles 2 and 6 of the law modernise the publicity rules for vacant successions. Notices that were previously required to be published in printed legal-announcement newspapers may now also be published digitally on the website of the administrative authority responsible for state property. This apparently technical change has a practical consequence for foreign heirs who reside abroad: it reduces the risk that a French inheritance goes entirely unnoticed because a foreign heir was not reading the French printed press.
The law further amends Articles 810-2 and 810-3 of the Civil Code to improve coordination between notaires and the public authorities in identifying and managing abandoned estates (successions vacantes), and creates the legal basis for a national database of abandoned properties, to be supplied by public administrations and regulated professions and accessible to local elected officials.
B. Practical Pathways for Foreign Co-Owners in 2026
For foreign owners facing an indivision deadlock, the post-reform landscape offers four distinct procedural pathways. The choice among them depends on the shareholding structure, the level of cooperation among co-owners, and whether urgency is present. None of these pathways eliminates the need for a French notaire—the involvement of a notaire remains mandatory for any transaction affecting immovable property in France—but they differ significantly in speed, cost, and the degree of control retained by the parties.
1. Amicable partition (partage amiable). This remains the fastest and least expensive route. When all co-owners agree, they jointly instruct a French notaire to prepare a acte de partage (partition deed) that formalises the division—either by allocating the property outright to one co-owner who buys out the others (paying a balancing cash sum called a soulte), or by recording the sale to a third party and the distribution of the net proceeds. Partition duties (droits de partage) are 1.1% of the net value of the partitioned assets, plus notaire fees calculated on a regulated sliding scale. For foreign co-owners, the chief difficulty is practical: coordinating signatures across time zones, arranging notarised powers of attorney where necessary, and ensuring compliance with French anti-money-laundering requirements and the obligation to declare the beneficial owner. An amicable partition typically takes three to six months from agreement to final deed.
2. Judicial partition (partage judiciaire). When one or more co-owners refuse to participate in an amicable process, any single co-owner may petition the tribunal judiciaire of the location where the inheritance was opened—or where the property is situated in non-succession cases—to order judicial partition. The court appoints a notaire to conduct the operations of account, liquidation, and partition, and designates a juge commis (supervisory judge) to oversee and accelerate the process. The notaire drafts a procès-verbal de difficultés (statement of difficulties) recording any disputes that arise among the co-owners during the process; unresolved disputes are referred back to the court for determination. This procedure typically takes one to three years, depending on complexity, the number of co-owners, and the willingness of the non-cooperative parties to engage. For foreign owners, the reformed Article 840 now provides a clearer and more comprehensive legal basis for judicial intervention, extending beyond the succession context to cover all forms of indivision.
3. Judicial sale authorisation (vente autorisée en justice). Under the reformed Article 815-6, a co-owner may apply directly to the president of the tribunal judiciaire in accelerated proceedings on the merits (procédure accélérée au fond) for authorisation to sell the property unilaterally. The application must demonstrate that the sale is in the common interest and that the refusal or inaction of the other co-owners is endangering that interest—for instance, because the property is deteriorating, incurring ongoing costs (property tax, copropriété charges, insurance) that the blocking co-owner is not contributing to, or because a favourable market opportunity will be lost. The accelerated procedure is significantly faster than a full judicial partition: decisions can be obtained within months rather than years. This is likely to become the preferred route for foreign co-owners who need a swift resolution without the delays and loss of value associated with a public auction. The court may also, under the same article, designate a co-owner as administrator of the property or appoint a judicial sequestrator to take custody of the asset pending resolution.
4. Forced sale by auction (licitation). If the two-thirds threshold of Article 815-5-1 is met, or if the court orders licitation in the context of a judicial partition, the property is sold at public auction either at the tribunal judiciaire or, for residential property, through a notaire acting under court supervision. The court sets a reserve price (mise à prix) designed to be attractive enough to generate competitive bidding while protecting the minimum interests of all co-owners. If no bidder meets the reserve price, the court may authorise a reduction of the reserve by up to one quarter for a second auction session. The proceeds are deposited with the Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations or a designated escrow account and then distributed according to each co-owner’s share. For foreign owners, the main disadvantage of licitation is that auction sale prices typically fall significantly below market value—a discount that can easily reach 20 to 30%—and the co-owners bear the costs of the auction procedure, the mandatory legal advertising, and the notaire‘s fees associated with the auction process.
Special considerations for foreign co-owners. Several practical points deserve particular attention from non-French residents. First, the notaire may require a certified translation of identity documents, powers of attorney, and foreign court orders (such as divorce decrees), as well as an apostille or consular legalisation depending on the country of origin—the United Kingdom, United States, and Australia are all signatories to the Hague Apostille Convention, which simplifies this process significantly. Second, if the property is occupied by one co-owner without the consent of the others, an indemnité d’occupation (occupancy compensation) is payable to the indivision, calculated by reference to the market rental value of the property; this compensation accrues to the benefit of all co-owners proportionally and is accounted for in the final settlement of accounts. Third, for properties held through an SCI (société civile immobilière), the rules on indivision do not directly apply—what governs is the company’s articles of association and the general law of commercial companies—and this requires a separate and distinct legal analysis that goes beyond the scope of the indivision reform discussed here.
The Alsace-Moselle experiment. The 2026 law also provides for a five-year experimental application of the Alsace-Moselle local civil procedure regime, a hybrid system combining the French Civil Code with specific rules inherited from the German judicial tradition under the law of 1 June 1924. This experiment, endorsed by Article 7 of the law, may, if successful, inspire further procedural simplifications in the general law applicable across the rest of France from 2031 onwards. Foreign owners with property located in the Bas-Rhin, Haut-Rhin, or Moselle départements should be aware that local procedural rules and court practices may differ from those applicable in the remainder of the French territory.
Tax implications of exiting indivision. Exiting indivision triggers tax consequences that foreign owners must anticipate and plan for. The partition duties of 1.1% are in principle borne by all co-owners proportionally to their respective shares. If one co-owner buys out the shares of the others (rachat de parts or payment of a soulte), the transaction is treated as a sale for French capital gains tax purposes: the selling co-owner may be liable for French capital gains tax on the gain realised since acquisition, at the standard rate of 19% plus social charges—17.2% for non-EU/EEA residents, and 7.5% for residents of the European Union, the European Economic Area, or Switzerland. However, the principal private residence exemption may apply if the property was the seller’s principal residence at the time of sale, and ownership-duration allowances progressively reduce the taxable gain after the fifth year of ownership, reaching full exemption after 22 years for the income tax portion and 30 years for the social charges portion. Non-resident sellers of French real estate are also subject to a mandatory tax representative requirement if the sale price exceeds €150,000.
The notaire’s central role. Throughout any exit from indivision, the French notaire remains the indispensable hub. The notaire is a public officer vested with the authority to authenticate legal instruments, and no transfer of immovable property in France is legally effective without a notarised deed. In the context of indivision, the notaire conducts the inventory and valuation of the assets, collects the necessary documentation (title deeds, cadastral extracts, urban planning certificates, mandatory diagnostic reports), reconciles the accounts between co-owners (credits and debits for expenses advanced, occupancy compensation, improvements made), drafts the partition deed or the sale deed, collects and remits the applicable taxes and duties to the French tax authorities, and registers the deed with the land registry (service de la publicité foncière). Foreign co-owners should select a notaire who is experienced in cross-border transactions and who can communicate effectively in English if the co-owners are not French-speaking.
For a full discussion of the lawyer’s role in navigating these cross-border complexities and coordinating with the French notaire, see our real estate law practice page.
Conclusion
The April 2026 indivision reform does not revolutionise French property law, but it delivers something of genuine value to foreign co-owners who have been trapped in blocked joint ownership: speed, procedural clarity, and a meaningful reduction in the power of a single obstructive co-owner to hold an entire family’s wealth hostage. By empowering the president of the tribunal judiciaire to authorise a single co-owner to sign a sale deed alone, by extending judicial partition procedures to cover unmarried couples and former cohabitants, and by modernising the publicity rules for vacant successions, the legislature has addressed the most common and justified complaints about the pre-2026 system: that it was too slow, too expensive, and too easily blocked by a single recalcitrant party who bore none of the financial consequences of the deadlock.
The foundational principle of Article 815 of the Civil Code—that no one may be forced to remain in indivision—has always been the law. The 2026 reform has made it, for the first time, a principle that can be enforced within a timeframe that matters to the living rather than merely as a theoretical right vindicated by one’s heirs.