Indivision lawyer in Paris: planning the exit, settling the accounts.

Article 815 of the Civil Code allows a co-owner to bring about partition, subject to a stay resulting from a judgment or an agreement. One owner's refusal is therefore not enough to impose the continued holding of the property in indivision on the others indefinitely. A written proposal to buy out or sell first makes it possible to clarify the disagreements over value and the accounts. If no agreement is reached, Article 840 provides for a court action where amicable partition is refused or disputed. The judge then examines the claims made and the terms of partition, allocation or sale of the property. In the Lorient case cited above, a house that could not be divided was sold by licitation, as none of the former cohabitants sought its allocation. The lawyer handling an exit from indivision prepares the documents and the claims relating to the property, the expenses and its occupation.

An amicable buyout requires agreement on the value of the rights transferred and on the terms of completion. The amount proposed must be discussed together with the accounts: justified expenses, the property debt and any occupation indemnity claimed are not the same thing. The valuations of the property and the loan statement make it possible to build a verifiable proposal rather than a mere price request. The firm also examines the disagreements that may prevent signature, then prepares the exchanges with the notary and the bank. If no agreement is possible, the wish to keep the house does not by itself guarantee that it will be allocated by the court. The rights of each party and the claims that may be put to the judge in the situation concerned must be examined. Sale by licitation remains a possible outcome where the property cannot easily be divided or allocated.

Article 815-9 of the Civil Code provides for an indemnity where one co-owner has exclusive enjoyment of the property, unless otherwise agreed. The actual use of the home must therefore be examined, together with whether the other owners could in practice use it concurrently. The Court of Cassation requires a legal or factual impossibility of using the property, as the judgment of 26 March 2025 cited in the rules reiterates. The separation and the departure from the home must be set against the exchanges, the conditions of access and any decisions already made. The indemnity is therefore not deduced mechanically from an owner's mere change of address after a break-up. Its valuation also requires evidence of the rental value and the characteristics of the property during the period concerned. Finally, the firm examines whether there is an agreement on enjoyment and whether the sums that may be claimed are time-barred.

Holding the keys is evidence, but it must be assessed together with the concrete conditions in which the home is used. In its judgment of 6 May 2026, the Paris Court of Appeal found exclusive enjoyment despite occasional access. The circumstances of the separation, the residence actually established elsewhere and the limited nature of the visits were examined together. This decision therefore does not remove the need to show why concurrent use of the property was impossible in the case at hand. The court also states: “Indeed, this indemnity forms part of the indivision accounts, which will only be settled at the time of partition.” (our translation) Its valuation must be distinguished from the final distribution between owners (CA Paris, pôle 3 ch. 1, 6 May 2026, No. 22/20153). Emails, witness statements and evidence relating to access make it possible to document this discussion.

Article 815-13 of the Civil Code distinguishes expenses necessary for the preservation of the property from works that improve its condition. For an improvement financed personally, the text requires account to be taken, in fairness, of the increase in value at partition or sale. The invoice alone is therefore not enough to fix the amount that will be included in the accounts. The judgment of 21 October 2026 cited above specifically requires a check on the effect of the works on the value of the building. For preservation, the necessity of the expenses and their payment from personal funds must be established, in accordance with the same article. The firm matches invoices with bank statements and with evidence describing the condition of the property before and after the work. Claims are thus prepared item by item, without confusing personal expenses, preservation and improvement of the jointly owned property.

Repayment of the loan and the occupation indemnity answer distinct questions: the financing of the property and its exclusive enjoyment. Payment of the instalments must be documented so that the accounts can be discussed; it does not, by itself, settle exclusive occupation. In the Nancy judgment of 22 May 2026, the occupant relied in particular on the loan they were paying to contest the indemnity claimed. The court upheld the indemnity despite that argument and states: “This indemnity takes account, in particular, of the rental value of the property.” (our translation) (CA Nancy, 3e chambre, section 1, 22 May 2026, No. 25/01625). This outcome does not remove the examination of the payments when the indivision accounts between the owners are drawn up. The firm therefore asks for the deed of purchase, the loan agreement and the statements identifying the funds actually used. A proposal for an exit must deal with these items together, while keeping their own characterisation.

Article 815-5-1 of the Civil Code opens a procedure for court authorisation to holders of at least two-thirds of the undivided rights. It does not allow an amicable sale to be signed immediately by setting aside owners who oppose it or stay silent. The intention to sell is expressed before a notary, then served on the other co-owners in the manner provided for by the text. Their opposition, or their recorded silence, may lead the court to authorise the sale, subject to their rights. The judge must in particular check that the sale does not cause excessive harm to the rights of the other co-owners. A sale authorised in this way is carried out by licitation, within the framework laid down by the article, and is not a general power of disposal. Exceptions exist, in particular where ownership is split into bare ownership and usufruct; they must be checked before starting this procedure. In a purchase by two people in equal shares, neither owner alone holds the majority required to use this route.

Article 815-10 of the Civil Code provides for a five-year limitation period for fruits and revenues received or that could have been received. The occupation indemnity falls under this regime, as the Versailles Court of Appeal confirms in its judgment of 3 April 2025. The periods claimed and the document that actually makes the claim must be examined, without relying only on the date on which partition was opened. The court states: “It is therefore by reason of the first document that mentions an express claim for an occupation indemnity, asserting that indemnity, that the limitation period is interrupted.” (our translation) (CA Versailles, chambre famille 2-1, 3 April 2025, No. 23/06365). A writ of summons that is silent on this indemnity should therefore not be regarded as sufficient protection in a comparable case. The firm re-reads the documents and pleadings already filed, then compares their content with the chronology of the exclusive enjoyment relied on.

Brothers and sisters may hold together a property received by inheritance, but also a flat or house bought jointly. The title identifies the origin of their rights and the framework in which partition must be prepared. The rules on exclusive occupation and expenses must then be set against the existing agreements and each party's supporting documents. Where an inheritance is at the origin of the dispute, the case may also involve the operations and accounts specific to the settlement of the estate. The firm presents this subject on its page on inheritance law, to which the division of an estate should be directed. This page also covers indivisions arising from a purchase by two people, after the separation of cohabitants or civil partners (PACS), and between former spouses. In each situation, the firm examines the titles and the decisions already made before determining the claims suited to the property concerned.