Co-ownership charges lawyer in Paris: challenge, recover and allocate.

The challenge starts with an analysis of the co-ownership regulations and the division description. The co-owner first checks whether the allocation key for the disputed charge meets the test in Article 10 of the Law of 10 July 1965: relative values of the private parts for general charges, objective utility for special charges. If the key is non-compliant, an action to have it deemed unwritten under Article 43 is open at any time, with no time limit. The Court of Cassation has confirmed that any co-owner or the co-owners' association may, at any time, have the non-compliance with Article 10, first paragraph, recorded (Cass. 3e civ., 10 September 2020, No. 19-17.045, published in the Bulletin) (our translation). The judge declares the clause unwritten and makes a new, compliant allocation. The refund of overpayments is then limited by the five-year limitation period in Article 42, paragraph 1.

Since the Law of 23 November 2018, Article 42, paragraph 1, of the Law of 10 July 1965 makes the provisions of Article 2224 of the Civil Code applicable to personal actions relating to the co-ownership between co-owners or between a co-owner and the association (our translation), that is, a five-year limitation period. Before that reform, the period was ten years. The period runs from the date each call for funds falls due. For charges that fell due before the 2018 law came into force, the total duration may not exceed ten years. The association must therefore act within five years of each unpaid instalment, failing which the claim is time-barred by limitation. The Court of Cassation held on 17 November 1999 that an action to recover charges, which are undetermined and variable, is a personal action arising from the application of the 1965 law and is governed by the special limitation rule in Article 42. A formal notice, a writ of summons and an acknowledgement of debt interrupt the limitation period.

The statutory mortgage is a security over property provided for in Article 19-1 of the Law of 10 July 1965. The co-owners' association may have a mortgage registered on the lot of the defaulting co-owner to secure payment of the charges and works referred to in Articles 10 and 30. Registration is ordered by the judge or voluntarily consented to. It ranks among the security interests according to its date of registration. The statutory mortgage remains in place as long as the debt is unpaid, and burdens the lot regardless of changes of owner. For the defaulting co-owner, registration blocks any future sale or requires prior settlement of the arrears. This security is subsidiary to the special statutory priority over the property in Article 2374, 1° bis of the French Civil Code (Code civil), which ranks first for the charges of the current year and the last two years due. For older charges, the statutory mortgage takes over by securing payment.

Yes, but only after obtaining an enforceable title. Seizure of a bank account requires a final judgment ordering the co-owner to pay, or a decision enforceable on a provisional basis. The managing agent cannot seize directly, on its own initiative. The usual procedure begins with a formal notice under Article 19-2, followed by a writ of summons before the judicial court (ordinary procedure or accelerated procedure under Article 19-2). Once judgment has been obtained and served, the managing agent may have a garnishment order (saisie-attribution) levied on the debtor's account by a court commissioner. The account is frozen for the sum due, plus costs. The co-owner has one month to challenge it before the enforcement judge. After that, the funds are paid over to the managing agent. The seizure cannot exceed the sum due, and certain income remains unseizable (RSA, family allowances, minimum living allowance). For large sums, real property seizure of the lot remains the ultimate weapon.

The allocation key appears in the division description annexed to the co-ownership regulations. It is presented in tables giving, for each lot, the number of share values (tantièmes) attributed for each category of charges. Share values are expressed in thousandths, ten-thousandths or hundred-thousandths depending on the precision adopted. The sum of the share values of all the lots in a category must equal the total provided for (1,000 thousandths or 10,000 ten-thousandths). For general charges, the share values reflect the relative values of the private parts. For special charges (lift, heating, water), the share values reflect the objective utility of the equipment for the lot. The legal check consists in verifying that the weighting is consistent with the actual situation of the lot. A uniform grid between lots whose utility differs is suspect. A weighting that ignores the floor for lift charges is, in principle, contrary to Article 10. The firm offers a full audit of the regulations and the division description within 24 to 48 hours.

Special charges relate to shared services and common equipment in the building: lift, collective heating, collective hot water, mechanical ventilation, shared aerial, caretaking, air conditioning, parking access. Article 10 of the Law of 10 July 1965 requires an allocation according to the objective utility that these services offer to each lot (our translation). Objective utility is the theoretical utility derived from the physical situation of the lot, regardless of actual use. A co-owner who never uses the lift is nevertheless liable for the charges if the lift serves their floor: only theoretical utility counts. Conversely, a co-owner whose lot is not served by the equipment (ground floor for the lift, unheated lot for collective heating) may obtain an exemption or a minimal weighting. The weighting grid must reflect this difference. A uniform allocation between lots of differing utility is contrary to Article 10, as the Court of Cassation held on 9 May 2019 (No. 18-17.334), published in the Bulletin.

Full exemption is rare, but a minimal weighting is legally justified. A co-owner on the ground floor whose lot is not served by the lift may argue that the equipment has no objective utility for their lot. The Court of Cassation held that splitting lift charges in equal shares between lots on different floors is contrary to the utility criterion (Cass. 3e civ., 9 May 2019, No. 18-17.334, published in the Bulletin). The judge may therefore declare the uniform allocation clause unwritten and make a new, weighted allocation. A typical weighting gives zero or a minimal share value to an unserved ground floor, and increases progressively with the floor. If the ground floor is served by the lift (for example, direct access or a lot with a basement part), a reduced but non-zero weighting applies. The analysis requires reading the plans and checking how the equipment actually serves the lot. The firm carries out this check from the first analysis of the file.

The dissenting or absent co-owner has two months from notification of the minutes to challenge the resolution adopting the budget, under Article 42, paragraph 2. After that, an action to annul the vote is time-barred. During that period, a writ of summons before the Paris judicial court may seek annulment for a procedural defect (late notice of meeting, incomplete agenda) or for an erroneous majority. If the period has passed, the budget is definitively enforceable. The co-owner may nonetheless raise the point by way of defence when the managing agent sues for payment of the calls for funds: they may then plead the illegality of the resolution on which the call is based, provided that illegality is itself open to challenge. For gaps between the voted budget and actual spending, Article 14-1 requires the managing agent to present a detailed statement of expenditure. A significant overrun may justify an urgent application (référé) for the appointment of an expert under Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code de procédure civile). The co-owners' council, in its supervisory role, should raise the alarm before the vote so that the co-owners are not shut out by the fixed time limit.

The annual regularisation of charges takes place when the accounts are approved at the general meeting. The dissenting or absent co-owner may challenge the resolution approving the accounts within the two-month period in Article 42, paragraph 2. The challenge may concern the calculation of the charges, their allocation to a specific lot or the justification of certain expenses. At the stage of challenging individual calls, the co-owner may raise the lack of supporting documents, inconsistency with the voted budget, or application of a non-compliant allocation key. On this last point, an action to have the clause deemed unwritten under Article 43 remains open at any time. The co-owner may therefore act simultaneously to annul the resolution approving the accounts (two-month period) and to have the underlying key deemed unwritten (no limitation period). The twin action makes it possible to call overpayments into question within the five-year limitation period.

The regime depends on the nature of the error. Where the initial share values are contrary to Article 10 (wrong valuation, a lot overlooked, calculation error), an action to have the clause deemed unwritten under Article 43 is open at any time. The Court of Cassation held on 10 September 2020 (No. 19-17.045), published in the Bulletin, that an action to have an allocation clause recorded as unwritten is not subject to limitation. Where the error results from a general meeting decision (for example, an amendment not properly voted by the double majority in Article 26), the dissenting or absent co-owner has two months from notification of the minutes to challenge the resolution. Where the error results from a notarial amending deed made without approval of the meeting (the typical case being the division of a lot), the same Court of Cassation has held that an allocation not submitted to the meeting may be declared unwritten, without any time limit. The firm recommends reacting as soon as the error is discovered, without waiting, to preserve evidence and limit the accumulated financial consequences.

The rule is nuanced. The association's special statutory priority over the property under Article 2374, 1° bis of the Civil Code ranks ahead of other creditors, including the bank, but only for the charges of the current year and the last two years due. For those sums, the association has super-priority and is paid first out of the sale price of the lot. For older charges, the statutory mortgage under Article 19-1 takes over: it ranks according to its date of registration. If the association's statutory mortgage is registered before the bank's contractual mortgage, it ranks ahead. If it is registered afterwards, it ranks behind. The association can therefore maximise its protection by registering a statutory mortgage promptly once the debt is established, rather than waiting. The Court of Cassation held on 27 November 2013 (No. 12-25.824), published in the Bulletin, that a notice of objection that is wrongly itemised causes the claims to lose their priority status, so that they become merely mortgage-secured or unsecured claims. Formal rigour is therefore essential.

Yes, significantly. The simplified procedure provided for in Article 19-2 of the Law of 10 July 1965 allows the managing agent to apply to the president of the judicial court under the accelerated procedure on the merits provided for in Article 481-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The claim is brought by writ of summons to a hearing held on the day and time set for that purpose. The judge rules quickly, in principle within three to six months, against twelve to twenty-four months under the ordinary procedure. The procedure does, however, require a prior formal notice under Article 19-2 and expiry of the thirty-day period, which triggers acceleration of payment. The title obtained is immediately enforceable, which allows enforcement measures (garnishment order, seizure and sale of movables, real property seizure) to be started quickly. The Article 19-2 procedure is not, however, suited to every situation: if the co-owner disputes the claim or if an action to have a clause deemed unwritten is to be heard in parallel, the ordinary procedure remains preferable to allow a full pre-trial preparation.

The competent court is the judicial court of the place where the building is situated, under Article 44 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In Paris, territorial jurisdiction lies with the Paris judicial court, and subject-matter jurisdiction is given to the 8th chamber, sections specialising in co-ownership charges and leases. Representation by a lawyer is mandatory in contentious matters. The ordinary procedure goes through a writ of summons before the civil chamber, followed by pre-trial preparation conducted by the pre-trial judge (Article 789 of the Code of Civil Procedure). The simplified Article 19-2 procedure goes through a writ of summons before the president of the judicial court, ruling under the accelerated procedure on the merits. The enforcement judge, competent for difficulties of compulsory enforcement, also sits at the Paris judicial court. An appeal to the Court of Cassation against the court of appeal's judgment may be brought within two months, before the Third Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, the chamber specialising in co-ownership.

Yes, subject to the available means of challenge. A co-owner absent from the meeting and not represented is classed as non-attending. They are bound by the resolutions adopted, including approval of the accounts and the vote on the budget, provided the notice of meeting was properly sent to them twenty-one days before the meeting and the minutes were notified to them within the month following the meeting. The non-attending co-owner nevertheless has the same right of challenge as the dissenting one: they may bring an action to annul the resolutions within the two-month period in Article 42, paragraph 2, from notification of the minutes. If the notice of meeting was not properly sent, the period does not run and the action remains open within the ordinary five-year limitation period. A non-attending co-owner who discovers the irregularity after the two-month period must therefore show the absence of proper notification to preserve their right to act. This check is one of the first the firm carries out on any challenge file.

The managing agent may refuse an amicable payment schedule, but the judge has the power to grant time to pay under Article 1343-5 of the French Civil Code (Code civil). When seised of a claim for payment, the judicial court may, having regard to the debtor's situation and the creditor's needs, defer or spread payment of the sums due within a limit of two years. A debtor requesting time must produce proof of income and outgoings and show the ability to comply with the proposed schedule. While the time to pay runs, interest continues to accrue unless the judge decides otherwise. The co-owners' association nevertheless retains the possibility of recovering the debt if the schedule is breached. For the managing agent, a flat refusal of a schedule may lead the judge to impose an unfavourable period. An amicable settlement under a signed protocol is often preferable. The firm assists in drafting balanced protocols that secure both recovery and the cash position of the defaulting co-owner.