{"id":2114600,"date":"2026-09-01T04:11:28","date_gmt":"2026-09-01T02:11:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/2026\/09\/01\/french-co-ownership-charges-british-usufructuary-bare-owner-after-brexit\/"},"modified":"2026-09-01T04:11:28","modified_gmt":"2026-09-01T02:11:28","slug":"french-co-ownership-charges-british-usufructuary-bare-owner-after-brexit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/09\/01\/french-co-ownership-charges-british-usufructuary-bare-owner-after-brexit\/","title":{"rendered":"French Co-Ownership Charges After Brexit: Can a British Usufructuary or Bare Owner Challenge the Wrong Bill?"},"content":{"rendered":"

When a British family inherits a flat in France, the ownership may be split between a usufructuary and one or more bare owners. The French terms are usufruitier<\/em> for the person entitled to use the property and receive its income, and nu-propri\u00e9taire<\/em> for the person who holds the underlying ownership without present enjoyment. This arrangement is called a d\u00e9membrement du droit de propri\u00e9t\u00e9<\/em>, or split ownership. It is common after the death of a spouse, a lifetime gift or a succession planned between parents and children.<\/p>\n

The difficulty often appears in an apparently simple document: the co-ownership service-charge statement. In France, a residential building divided into private lots and shared areas is a copropri\u00e9t\u00e9<\/a><\/em>, and its manager is the syndic<\/em>. A bill addressed to only one family member may combine ordinary running costs, a major project, a reserve contribution and recovery fees. The answer is not found by converting pounds into euros or by applying a UK leasehold rule. It depends on the French lot, the co-ownership regulations, the category of each charge, the title and the information supplied to the syndic.<\/p>\n

The short answer is that a British usufructuary or bare owner can challenge a wrong allocation, but must distinguish the internal account between the two rights-holders from the syndic\u2019s right to recover an amount due to the co-ownership. This guide focuses on that distinction, the evidence to request and the deadlines that can be lost. For the wider framework, see our guide to French co-ownership disputes for foreign owners<\/a>. UK residence status may matter to correspondence and representation; it does not remove a French building from French co-ownership law.<\/p>\n

I. Who is liable when a British family splits a French flat between usufruct and bare ownership?<\/h2>\n

A. Why Brexit does not decide the charge: identify the French lot, the title and the charge category<\/h3>\n

Brexit is often the first fact mentioned in an email to a French syndic, but it is rarely the legal test for a co-ownership bill. The building, the lot and the co-ownership association are situated in France. The starting point is therefore the French title and the French statutory regime, even if the family lives in Surrey, the deceased was domiciled in England, the correspondence is in English or the account is paid from a UK bank.<\/p>\n

This does not mean that every cross-border question is French. Residence, succession, inheritance taxation, pension income and the service of documents can raise separate conflict-of-law issues. GOV.UK\u2019s official guidance for people living in France<\/a> can help with the UK administrative side. It does not replace the rules governing a French building\u2019s common parts. A charge for a lift, roof, communal heating system or syndic\u2019s management is assessed by reference to the French lot and the applicable co-ownership documents.<\/p>\n

The first task is to identify precisely what the British family owns. \u201cThe house\u201d may conceal several legal units: an apartment, a cellar, a garage, a parking space or a service room. Each lot may have its own tanti\u00e8mes<\/em>, meaning the ownership shares used in the co-ownership calculation, and its own special charges. The statement may also combine general common parts with special common parts serving only one stairwell, block or facility.<\/p>\n

The file should normally contain the notarial deed creating or recording the split ownership, the certificate of title after a death, any donation deed, the probate or succession documents used in France, the r\u00e8glement de copropri\u00e9t\u00e9<\/em> and the \u00e9tat descriptif de division<\/em>. The regulation is the co-ownership document that describes the building\u2019s rules, while the division statement identifies the lots and their shares. An English translation can be useful for the family, but the French documents remain the reference when the syndic calculates the account.<\/p>\n

The statutory baseline is found in the French Co-Ownership Act of 10 July 1965. Its Article 5<\/a> states that, where the titles are silent or contradictory, a lot\u2019s share of the common parts is proportionate to the relative value of the private parts, assessed by their consistency, area and situation \u201csans \u00e9gard \u00e0 leur utilisation\u201d. In English, that means the basic ownership-share calculation is not automatically reduced because a British owner visits only twice a year or leaves the flat empty.<\/p>\n

That rule must then be separated from the utility test. Article 10 of the same Act<\/a> provides that co-owners contribute to collective services and common equipment according to the objective utility those services and items present for each lot. The official text says: \u201cLes copropri\u00e9taires sont tenus de participer aux charges entra\u00een\u00e9es par les services collectifs\u201d. It also provides that charges for preserving, maintaining and administering common parts are allocated in proportion to the relative values of the private parts. A statement that uses the wrong key, wrong lot or wrong category can therefore be challenged, but \u201cI did not use it\u201d is not by itself enough.<\/p>\n

There are three relationships to keep separate from the beginning:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The relationship between the syndic, acting for the syndicat des copropri\u00e9taires<\/em> (the legal association of all co-owners), and the persons recorded as holding rights in the lot.<\/li>\n
  2. The internal relationship between the usufructuary and the bare owner, including any arrangement in the deed or a later written agreement.<\/li>\n
  3. The voting and representation relationship at the general meeting, where the two rights may need a common representative.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    A family agreement may decide that the usufructuary pays all routine costs or that the bare owner advances a particular project. That agreement can be decisive between the family members, but it does not necessarily alter the syndic\u2019s rights. The syndic needs to know who holds which right, whether the deed was notified and whether the regulation contains a solidarity clause. A dispute becomes much harder when the family argues internally about a split that was never sent to the manager.<\/p>\n

    The notification point is not a formality to ignore. Article 6 of the Decree of 17 March 1967<\/a> requires any transfer of a lot, creation of usufruct or bare ownership, or transfer of one of those rights to be notified without delay to the syndic. The official rule begins: \u201cTout transfert de propri\u00e9t\u00e9 d’un lot ou d’une fraction de lot\u201d. The notification must identify the lot and the names and addresses of the holders. If the family has changed address after Brexit, the notification should also give a reliable elected address for French proceedings and correspondence.<\/p>\n

    Proof of notification matters for two reasons. It lets the syndic address calls for payment correctly and gives the family a better basis for saying that the statutory split, rather than an assumed single-owner account, should be used. It does not erase a solidarity clause in the regulation. It also does not turn a disputed family allocation into a reason to ignore an undisputed debt. The practical answer often begins by sending the deed, the French title record and a clear instruction about the contact person, then asking the syndic to confirm the account position in writing.<\/p>\n

    Finally, check whether the French lot is occupied, let or genuinely unused. That fact may help explain who has enjoyed the property, but it does not rewrite the tanti\u00e8mes<\/em>. A ground-floor flat may still benefit objectively from a lift because it has access to a basement, a garage or another level. Conversely, a charge for a facility that the lot cannot use at all may be open to challenge. The relevant evidence is the regulation, the physical layout and the technical purpose of the service, not a general assertion that the owner never presses the lift button.<\/p>\n

    B. How to allocate ordinary charges, works and the call for funds between the usufructuary and bare owner<\/h3>\n

    Once the lot and the charge key are established, classify every line rather than asking who should pay the statement as a whole. French law does not treat a quarterly call for funds, an insurance premium, a roof replacement and an individual water reading as one undivided debt. The description, the approved budget, the co-ownership regulations and the nature of the work all matter.<\/p>\n

    The Civil Code supplies the starting point for the internal division of expenses. Article 605<\/a> states: \u201cL’usufruitier n’est tenu qu’aux r\u00e9parations d’entretien.\u201d It places major repairs on the owner unless they were caused by a failure to carry out maintenance during the usufruct, in which case the usufructuary may also be responsible. Article 606<\/a> gives the traditional definition of major repairs, including substantial work to major walls, vaults, beams, complete roofs, retaining walls and enclosing walls. It concludes: \u201cToutes les autres r\u00e9parations sont d’entretien.\u201d<\/p>\n

    The word \u201cowner\u201d in that Civil Code rule must be read alongside the split title. In a normal usufruct, the usufructuary has use and enjoyment while the bare owner retains the underlying ownership. The routine maintenance \/ major repair distinction is a strong starting point, not a substitute for reading the deed. A donation or succession instrument may adjust the allocation between the two people. A lease, if the flat is rented, adds another internal relationship with the tenant. The regulation may also impose a solidarity clause that changes how the syndic can seek payment.<\/p>\n

    Annual occupation-related expenses normally sit closer to the usufructuary\u2019s side. Article 608 of the Civil Code<\/a> says: \u201cL’usufruitier est tenu, pendant sa jouissance, de toutes les charges annuelles de l’h\u00e9ritage\u201d. That does not mean every item labelled \u201cannual\u201d is automatically a charge of enjoyment. The account still needs to be analysed. Routine cleaning, ordinary maintenance, day-to-day management and consumption linked to enjoyment are different from a structural repair or a capital project. A recurring reserve contribution may need its own analysis rather than being placed blindly in the routine column.<\/p>\n

    The French Co-Ownership Act operates at a different level. Article 14-1<\/a> says the syndicate votes an annual provisional budget for current maintenance, operation and administration, and that co-owners pay provisions, usually one quarter of the voted budget at each period. The text provides: \u201cLes copropri\u00e9taires versent au syndicat des provisions \u00e9gales au quart du budget vot\u00e9.\u201d These calls can be sent to the person recorded for the lot even when the family\u2019s internal account later requires reimbursement by the other rights-holder.<\/p>\n

    Works outside that ordinary budget should be isolated. The general meeting may approve a fa\u00e7ade programme, roof renewal, lift replacement, waterproofing or compliance work with a separate timetable. The fact that a project is paid in instalments does not necessarily turn it into maintenance. Ask for the resolution, the estimate, the invoices, the technical description and the allocation key. The wording \u201ctravaux d\u2019entretien\u201d in an invoice is not conclusive if the work substantially reconstructs a structural element.<\/p>\n

    The work fund is another source of confusion. Article 14-2-1<\/a> creates a fund for specified future works in residential buildings and provides that the sums paid are attached to the lots. The official text says: \u201cLes sommes vers\u00e9es au titre du fonds de travaux sont attach\u00e9es aux lots\u201d. That rule concerns the co-ownership fund and the lot; it does not, on its own, resolve whether the usufructuary or bare owner must ultimately bear the cost between themselves. For that question, return to the Civil Code, the deed and any enforceable agreement.<\/p>\n

    A useful working schedule has four columns: the charge description, the statutory or contractual allocation, the person billed by the syndic and the person who should bear the amount internally. For example, routine communal cleaning may be billed through the lot\u2019s general shares and then allocated internally to the usufructuary. A major roof reconstruction may be billed to the lot and then claimed internally from the bare owner, subject to the deed and the precise legal classification. An individual water or heating cost may follow a meter or a special key rather than the general tanti\u00e8mes<\/em>.<\/p>\n

    The Court of Cassation\u2019s decision of 5 March 2013, no. 12-13.448<\/a>, is a useful warning against labels. In that case, it approved the factual classification of several projects, including work to lift doors, letterboxes, a stairwell and a fa\u00e7ade, as maintenance for which the usufructuary was liable. The official judgment records that the works \u201c\u00e9taient des travaux d’entretien dont la charge incombait \u00e0 l’usufruitier\u201d. The case was fact-specific and did not create a rule that every lift-related bill belongs to the usufructuary. It shows why the technical description and the nature of the work must be reviewed before sending a categorical objection.<\/p>\n

    The same decision also illustrates a practical problem: a vote by the person who attends the general meeting and a payment obligation between the rights-holders are not identical questions. The usufructuary may have handled the meeting for years, while the bare owner receives a major-works call later. The family should agree in writing on who attends, who obtains the papers, who pays the undisputed amount and how any recovery is made. An English-language family email is useful evidence, but a French formal mandate or an express clause in the title is safer when the meeting or a court proceeding is approaching.<\/p>\n

    Representation at the general meeting has its own statutory rule. Article 23 of the 1965 Act<\/a> provides: \u201cEn cas d’usufruit, les int\u00e9ress\u00e9s sont, \u00e0 d\u00e9faut d’accord, repr\u00e9sent\u00e9s par le nu-propri\u00e9taire.\u201d If there is no agreement, the bare owner represents the interested parties for the usufruct situation; a court can appoint a common representative in the cases described by the text. This concerns representation and voting. It should not be mistaken for a complete answer to which person ultimately bears each expense.<\/p>\n

    The regulation may contain a solidarity clause. Public guidance from Service-Public.fr on co-ownership charges<\/a> explains that, when the syndic is properly informed of the split ownership, the usufructuary generally bears enjoyment-related current expenses and the bare owner major repairs, while noting that the regulation may nevertheless provide for solidarity. Read the exact clause, its scope and the notices received. A clause may allow the syndicate to ask either holder for the whole amount even though the two family members must then settle the final burden between themselves.<\/p>\n

    The Court of Cassation applied that risk in its decision of 30 November 2004, no. 03-11.201. It upheld reasoning that the family had to inform the syndic of the split ownership and that a solidarity clause in the regulation was enforceable against them. The official judgment states that the clause was \u201copposable\u201d to the usufructuary and bare owner and that they were \u201csolidairement tenus\u201d to pay the balance. The lesson is not that every French bill is automatically joint and several. The lesson is that the title, notice and regulation must be reviewed before relying on the ordinary usufruct \/ bare-ownership split.<\/p>\n

    An earlier decision, Court of Cassation, civil chamber 3, 14 November 1996, no. 94-14.846, concerned a right of use and habitation rather than the exact same usufruct arrangement. It confirms the importance of the right actually held and the terms of the deed. The Court recorded that a person occupying the entire house was subject to charges comparable to the usufructuary and held that the contractual clause had to be applied according to its wording. Its official analysis describes the result as: \u201cL’usager qui occupe la totalit\u00e9 de la maison est assujetti … au paiement des contributions comme l’usufruitier.\u201d This case should be used by analogy with care, not as a shortcut around the title.<\/p>\n

    The correct allocation may therefore be different at three stages: who is shown as debtor on the syndic\u2019s ledger, who must pay first to avoid recovery action and who must bear the amount in the final family account. A British owner who receives a demand should obtain the documents and reserve their position promptly. Delaying payment of a clearly due sum while the family debates reimbursement can create a second dispute, with interest, recovery costs or litigation added to the original calculation.<\/p>\n

    II. How can a British usufructuary or bare owner challenge the wrong bill?<\/h2>\n

    A. What documents, objections and deadlines must be assembled before the syndic or the court acts?<\/h3>\n

    The strongest challenge is specific. \u201cThe bill is unfair\u201d gives the syndic no workable correction. A useful objection identifies the lot, the period, the line, the calculation key, the document that contradicts it and the amount accepted or disputed. The aim is to show whether the problem is a wrong tanti\u00e8me<\/em>, a wrong utility assessment, a work classified incorrectly, an absent credit, a duplicate call or a charge addressed to the wrong rights-holder.<\/p>\n

    Start with the co-ownership ledger and ask for an itemised statement. Request the current account for each lot, the annual accounts, the approved budget, the calls for funds, the adjustment after approval of accounts, the general-meeting notices and minutes, and the invoices or contracts supporting the disputed line. For a project, ask for the resolution authorising it, the technical specification, the quotations, the completion certificate and the payment schedule. For water or heating, request meter readings, the date of the reading, the method of allocation and any recalculation after a defective meter.<\/p>\n

    Then assemble the family-side documents: the notarial deed, the certificate of title, the succession or donation deed, any clause on charges, a written agreement between usufructuary and bare owner, proof of notification to the syndic, and the addresses used for notices. If the deed is in French, produce a short English working translation for the family but retain the French original for the formal file. Mark the exact paragraphs on usufruct, repairs, expenses, voting and solidarity rather than sending a large unindexed PDF.<\/p>\n

    The co-ownership regulations deserve close attention. Check the general and special charge schedules, the description of the lift or heating system, the use of the basement and car park, the allocation of private-use common areas and any provision for a split title. If the bill concerns a ground-floor apartment, do not argue only from the floor number. Establish whether the lot has any objective access to the facility. If the bill concerns a roof or fa\u00e7ade, compare the project with the Civil Code\u2019s major-repair language and with the resolution approved by the general meeting.<\/p>\n

    The co-owners\u2019 council can be useful in obtaining management records. Article 21 of the 1965 Act<\/a> states that it may request access to and copies of documents relating to the syndic\u2019s management. The official wording begins: \u201cLe conseil syndical peut prendre connaissance, et copie, \u00e0 sa demande\u201d. A British owner should not assume that an informal request to a neighbour is equivalent to a formal documentary request. Ask the council to raise the issue, but write to the syndic directly and keep proof of delivery.<\/p>\n

    A first letter can be concise. It should state that the writer is the usufructuary or bare owner of the identified lot, attach proof of title and notification, list the disputed lines, explain the proposed correction and request a revised statement. It should distinguish the amount not disputed from the amount under review. If the writer is not fluent in French, an English explanation can accompany a French summary. A bilingual letter reduces the risk that the syndic treats the objection as a general refusal to pay.<\/p>\n

    The letter should ask the syndic to confirm four points in writing:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Which person or persons are recorded for the lot and whether the split ownership has been entered in the management file.<\/li>\n
    2. Which charge key and tanti\u00e8mes<\/em> were used for each disputed line.<\/li>\n
    3. Whether the line is part of the ordinary budget, an approved project, the work fund, an individual consumption charge or recovery costs.<\/li>\n
    4. Whether the regulation contains a solidarity clause and, if so, the precise article relied upon.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Do not send only a complaint about Brexit, bank transfer costs or the fact that the family lives in the UK. Those facts may explain why a notice was missed, but they do not prove a misallocation. Do not send only a bank receipt either. Payment proves that money moved; it does not prove that the correct person or key was used. The evidence must connect the legal right, the lot, the calculation and the objection.<\/p>\n

      Payment strategy requires care. If the amount is plainly due and only the internal reimbursement is disputed, paying the undisputed part with a written reservation may be safer than withholding everything. If the statement includes a serious error, ask promptly for a standstill or corrected call, but do not assume that a reservation suspends enforcement. A syndic may pursue an amount that remains unpaid unless a court or written agreement changes the position. The family should record whether a payment is made on behalf of the usufructuary, the bare owner or both, and preserve the transfer reference.<\/p>\n

      There are two different limitation routes. A personal accounting claim between a co-owner and the syndicate is generally subject to the rule referred to in the first paragraph of Article 42, which sends the reader to Article 2224 of the Civil Code<\/a>. It provides: \u201cLes actions personnelles ou mobili\u00e8res se prescrivent par cinq ans\u201d. The starting point depends on when the right-holder knew or should have known the facts allowing the claim. That is not a licence to wait: accounts, emails and notices become harder to reconstruct, especially when several British family members move between countries.<\/p>\n

      The second route concerns a decision of the general meeting itself. If the family wants to challenge a resolution approving a charge, works or a new allocation, the special two-month deadline must be checked immediately. A demand for correction of a ledger is not automatically the same as an action to annul the resolution that created the charge. The court will need to know whether the complaint attacks the calculation, the underlying vote, or both. A letter to the syndic does not preserve every court deadline.<\/p>\n

      A practical file index can be prepared as follows: title and notification; regulations and lot schedule; disputed statement; budget and accounts; minutes and notice; invoices and technical records; correspondence and proof of delivery; payment history; and a calculation table showing the requested correction. For an English-speaking family, add a one-page chronology with dates in the French format and the date each document was received. This prevents a late email, a notice sent to an old address or an annual adjustment from being mistaken for the date on which the legal period began.<\/p>\n

      B. What remedy is available when the syndic demands payment, accelerates the debt or an assembly vote is wrong?<\/h3>\n

      If the syndic refuses correction or sends a formal demand, the next step depends on the source of the error. A wrong ledger entry may support a claim for accounts to be rectified, reimbursement or a declaration of the correct allocation. A dispute about whether the lot benefits from a collective facility may require analysis of the regulation and physical configuration. A major repair charged to the usufructuary may require a claim against the bare owner internally, a challenge to the syndicate\u2019s demand, or both. The pleadings must identify the correct defendant and the correct remedy.<\/p>\n

      Recovery proceedings can move quickly. Article 19-2 of the 1965 Act<\/a> provides that, after a provision due under Article 14-1 remains unpaid and a formal notice has been unsuccessful for thirty days, other future provisions and certain previously approved sums can become immediately due. The official text says: \u201capr\u00e8s mise en demeure rest\u00e9e infructueuse pass\u00e9 un d\u00e9lai de trente jours\u201d. The president of the tribunal judiciaire can then order payment under the procedure described by the article, once the budget, works or accounts and the co-owner\u2019s default have been established.<\/p>\n

      That mechanism does not decide the family\u2019s final internal burden. It also does not mean that every amount on a demand is correct. It does mean that a British recipient should not treat a formal notice as an ordinary reminder. Check the date of service, the sum claimed, the approval documents, the calculation and the identity of the person pursued. Send the objection and the supporting title immediately, seek a written correction or agreement, and obtain French legal advice if a court document is served.<\/p>\n

      The place of the court is normally linked to the building and the French co-ownership. An English solicitor may help explain the family history, succession or overseas addresses, but a French lawyer is needed to assess the French proceedings, draft the response and coordinate with the tribunal, notary or syndic. Documents may need a certified translation, especially where the court must understand a UK will, a grant of probate, a trust arrangement or an agreement governing the family\u2019s expenses. A translation should not silently change \u201cusufruit\u201d, \u201cnue-propri\u00e9t\u00e9\u201d, \u201ccharges\u201d or \u201csolidarit\u00e9\u201d; those terms have a defined legal context.<\/p>\n

      When the underlying issue is an assembly vote, Article 42 is the critical gate. Article 42 of the 1965 Act<\/a> states that personal co-ownership actions use the Article 2224 time rule, but that challenges to assembly decisions must be brought by opposing or defaulting co-owners within two months of notification of the minutes. The official wording is: \u201cdans un d\u00e9lai de deux mois \u00e0 compter de la notification du proc\u00e8s-verbal d’assembl\u00e9e\u201d. The syndic must notify the minutes within the period stated in the provision.<\/p>\n

      This creates a common trap for a split British title. The usufructuary may have attended and voted while the bare owner received no separate explanation. Or the bare owner may have been treated as representative under Article 23 but objected only after the first call for funds. Determine who was summoned, who voted, who was recorded as opposing or absent and when the minutes were notified. If a representative acted without the authority the deed or agreement required, that may raise a separate issue, but the two-month period must still be examined rather than assumed to wait for the bill.<\/p>\n

      The Court of Cassation\u2019s decision of 19 June 1973, no. 72-11.136, is an early authority on the status of the persons who may bring an assembly challenge. Its official text says that Article 42 gives the action \u201caux seuls opposants et d\u00e9faillants\u201d. Although the decision is old, the point remains useful when checking standing: a person who attended and voted in favour may not have the same route as an opposing or absent co-owner. The file should therefore preserve the proxy, voting form, attendance sheet and minutes.<\/p>\n

      In its decision of 22 January 2013, no. 12-11.533, the Court of Cassation held that the statutory two-month regime applied to the assembly disputes before it. The judgment records that even a complaint about serious irregularities in the organisation of meetings was treated under Article 42 and notes that the vote on the budget was also an assembly decision. The official decision is important for a British owner who waits for the annual statement before reacting: an objection to the budget vote may already be out of time when the later call for payment arrives.<\/p>\n

      The recent decision of 10 October 2024, no. 22-18.637<\/a> shows that a charge dispute may involve technical evidence and a correction of the allocation, not just a demand to cancel a debt. The case concerned water charges for service rooms and a dispute over individual meter readings and the use of co-ownership shares. The Court records that the owners had \u201ccontest\u00e9 la r\u00e9partition des charges d’eau\u201d and sought allocation by co-ownership shares. The decision ultimately addressed procedural defects in the appeal judgment, so it should not be presented as a universal rule for water billing. Its practical value is the reminder to preserve meter evidence, the regulation and the precise relief requested.<\/p>\n

      Where the bill concerns a major repair, the technical label can determine the internal claim. The 2013 decision, no. 12-13.448, involved an apartment in co-ownership and a dispute between a usufructuary and the Fondation d\u2019Auteuil as bare owner. The Court rejected the appeal after the lower court found the identified works to be maintenance. That result does not mean a bare owner can never be responsible for a lift or fa\u00e7ade project. It means the court will examine the nature of the work, the decision, the title and the evidence rather than accept a family description such as \u201ccapital expense\u201d without detail.<\/p>\n

      Where the syndic relies on solidarity, the 2004 decision, no. 03-11.201, should be read with Article 6 of the 1967 Decree. The failure to notify the split ownership and the wording of the regulation were central to the result. The later decision of 24 September 2008, no. 07-17.360, also examined a situation in which a transfer had not been notified and the parties relied on an internal arrangement. The official judgment records that the transfer was inopposable in the circumstances before the court and that the syndic could not be required to allocate charges on the basis of an act that had not been properly brought to its attention. The exact effect depends on the facts and on the clause in the regulation, but the two decisions make one point clear: send the title and notification evidence early.<\/p>\n

      A negotiated solution can be sensible where the bill is partly correct. The family may ask the syndic to correct the ledger prospectively, issue a credit or revised call, suspend recovery of the disputed fraction for a short period and record that the parties remain jointly represented for future meetings. The settlement should state whether it binds the syndicate, the usufructuary, the bare owner or only two family members. It should also deal with prior years, recovery costs, interest, future works and the next annual accounts. A vague promise to \u201csort it out later\u201d leaves the same dispute for the next call.<\/p>\n

      If no agreement is possible, the claim should be framed with precision. Possible relief may include correction of the charge account, repayment of an overpayment, a declaration that a particular person bears the expense internally, annulment of an assembly resolution within the applicable period, or a defence to a recovery claim. The evidence should match the relief. A court cannot correct a tanti\u00e8me<\/em> without the regulation and lot schedule; it cannot classify a roof project without the technical documents; and it cannot decide a family reimbursement without the deed and payment history.<\/p>\n

      The legal position can also change after the usufruct ends. Full ownership may be consolidated, a bare owner may become the sole owner, or a later sale may create a new notification and a new account. The date of death, the date of the notarial certificate, the date the syndic received the notice and the date of each call should be placed on one chronology. A British family should not assume that the person who paid the last invoice remains the person legally responsible for the next one.<\/p>\n

      The safest response to a wrong bill is therefore neither a blanket refusal nor an unexamined payment. Identify the French lot, prove the split ownership, notify the syndic, obtain the charge documents, separate routine enjoyment costs from major works, record the undisputed amount, and check whether an assembly deadline or recovery deadline is running. If a formal notice or court document has arrived, the chronology should be reviewed urgently by a lawyer familiar with French co-ownership and cross-border estates.<\/p>\n

      The complete decisions relied on above are linked here for verification: Court of Cassation, 30 November 2004, no. 03-11.201<\/a>; Court of Cassation, 14 November 1996, no. 94-14.846<\/a>; Court of Cassation, 19 June 1973, no. 72-11.136<\/a>; Court of Cassation, 22 January 2013, no. 12-11.533<\/a>; Court of Cassation, 24 September 2008, no. 07-17.360<\/a>; Court of Cassation, 5 March 2013, no. 12-13.448<\/a>; and Court of Cassation, 10 October 2024, no. 22-18.637<\/a>. Each decision must be read against its facts, the wording of the relevant title and the applicable co-ownership regulations.<\/p>\n

      Need a quick opinion on your case<\/h2>\n

      A telephone consultation can be arranged within 48 hours with a lawyer from the firm.<\/p>\n

      We can review the title, the co-ownership accounts and the correspondence with the syndic.<\/p>\n

      Call +33 6 46 60 58 22<\/a> or use our contact page<\/a>.<\/p>\n

      Conclusion<\/h2>\n

      For a British family with a French flat held in usufruct and bare ownership, the key question is not simply who received the invoice. The analysis has to move through the French lot, the tanti\u00e8mes<\/em>, the utility of the service, the classification of the work, the co-ownership regulation, the title and the notification to the syndic. Brexit does not suspend those rules. It may make addresses, translations, succession documents and representation more complicated, but the legal file is still built around the French building and its records.<\/p>\n

      The ordinary pattern is that the usufructuary carries expenses connected with enjoyment and routine maintenance, while the bare owner carries major repairs, subject to the deed, the regulation and the cause of the work. The syndic\u2019s recovery rights may follow a different path, particularly where the split was not notified or a solidarity clause applies. That is why an internal family agreement cannot be assumed to bind the co-ownership.<\/p>\n

      A prompt, documented objection is usually more valuable than a general complaint. Request the ledger and supporting papers, state the exact correction, pay or reserve the undisputed amount with care, and protect the two-month assembly period and the ordinary limitation period. A formal demand under Article 19-2 requires an immediate response. With the title, regulations, statements, minutes and correspondence assembled, the issue can be reduced to a series of answerable questions rather than an argument about nationality or distance.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      French rules for British families holding a French flat in usufruct and bare ownership: charge allocation, evidence, deadlines and remedies against a wrong co-ownership bill.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":251031309,"featured_media":16529,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kj_source_type":"","_kj_official_id":"","_kj_official_url":"","_kj_judilibre_id":"","_kj_jur":"","_kj_lieu":"","_kj_chambre":"","_kj_rg":"","_kj_date":"","activitypub_content_warning":"","activitypub_content_visibility":"","activitypub_max_image_attachments":4,"activitypub_interaction_policy_quote":"anyone","activitypub_status":"federated","footnotes":""},"categories":[80312,80314],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2114600","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-british-desk","category-decryptage"],"yoast_head":"\nFrench Co-Ownership Charges After Brexit: Can a British Usufructuary or Bare Owner Challenge the Wrong Bill? - Ma\u00eetre Reda Kohen, Real Estate and Business Law Attorney in Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/09\/01\/french-co-ownership-charges-british-usufructuary-bare-owner-after-brexit\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"French Co-Ownership Charges After Brexit: Can a British Usufructuary or Bare Owner Challenge the Wrong Bill?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"French rules for British families holding a French flat in usufruct and bare ownership: charge allocation, evidence, deadlines and remedies against a wrong co-ownership bill.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/09\/01\/french-co-ownership-charges-british-usufructuary-bare-owner-after-brexit\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Reda Kohen, Real Estate and Business Law Attorney in Paris\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-09-01T02:11:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Kohen\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Kohen\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/01\\\/french-co-ownership-charges-british-usufructuary-bare-owner-after-brexit\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/01\\\/french-co-ownership-charges-british-usufructuary-bare-owner-after-brexit\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Kohen\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/6254a643e6239d803134a01c800381bd\"},\"headline\":\"French Co-Ownership Charges After Brexit: Can a British Usufructuary or Bare Owner Challenge the Wrong Bill?\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-09-01T02:11:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/01\\\/french-co-ownership-charges-british-usufructuary-bare-owner-after-brexit\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":5557,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/01\\\/french-co-ownership-charges-british-usufructuary-bare-owner-after-brexit\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/11\\\/george-dagerotip-8CdA2foBDnk-unsplash.webp\",\"articleSection\":[\"British Desk\",\"D\u00e9cryptage\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"citation\":\"French Co-Ownership Charges After Brexit: Can a British Usufructuary or Bare Owner Challenge the Wrong Bill?\",\"about\":[{\"@type\":\"Thing\",\"name\":\"British Desk\"},{\"@type\":\"Thing\",\"name\":\"D\u00e9cryptage\"}],\"dateModified\":\"2026-09-01T02:11:28+00:00\",\"speakable\":{\"@type\":\"SpeakableSpecification\",\"cssSelector\":[\".article-content > p:first-of-type\"]}},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/01\\\/french-co-ownership-charges-british-usufructuary-bare-owner-after-brexit\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/01\\\/french-co-ownership-charges-british-usufructuary-bare-owner-after-brexit\\\/\",\"name\":\"French Co-Ownership Charges After Brexit: Can a British Usufructuary or Bare Owner Challenge the Wrong Bill? - Ma\u00eetre Reda Kohen, Real Estate and Business Law Attorney in Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/01\\\/french-co-ownership-charges-british-usufructuary-bare-owner-after-brexit\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/01\\\/french-co-ownership-charges-british-usufructuary-bare-owner-after-brexit\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/11\\\/george-dagerotip-8CdA2foBDnk-unsplash.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-09-01T02:11:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/01\\\/french-co-ownership-charges-british-usufructuary-bare-owner-after-brexit\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/01\\\/french-co-ownership-charges-british-usufructuary-bare-owner-after-brexit\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/01\\\/french-co-ownership-charges-british-usufructuary-bare-owner-after-brexit\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/11\\\/george-dagerotip-8CdA2foBDnk-unsplash.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/11\\\/george-dagerotip-8CdA2foBDnk-unsplash.webp\",\"width\":4079,\"height\":6119},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/01\\\/french-co-ownership-charges-british-usufructuary-bare-owner-after-brexit\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"French Co-Ownership Charges After Brexit: Can a British Usufructuary or Bare Owner Challenge the Wrong Bill?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Reda Kohen, attorney specialized in real estate and business law in Paris, advises and assists companies and individuals in their real estate, commercial and contractual transactions. He also handles real estate litigation and the resolution of complex commercial disputes.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/05\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/05\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/6254a643e6239d803134a01c800381bd\",\"name\":\"Kohen\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/1c5e76ef76bbbfdd2b4da984e2bf2fa4056fd51a27d25ce2c332047f1dfd6e00?s=96&d=identicon&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/1c5e76ef76bbbfdd2b4da984e2bf2fa4056fd51a27d25ce2c332047f1dfd6e00?s=96&d=identicon&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/1c5e76ef76bbbfdd2b4da984e2bf2fa4056fd51a27d25ce2c332047f1dfd6e00?s=96&d=identicon&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Kohen\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/author\\\/kohenmlk\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"French Co-Ownership Charges After Brexit: Can a British Usufructuary or Bare Owner Challenge the Wrong Bill? - Ma\u00eetre Reda Kohen, Real Estate and Business Law Attorney in Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/09\/01\/french-co-ownership-charges-british-usufructuary-bare-owner-after-brexit\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"French Co-Ownership Charges After Brexit: Can a British Usufructuary or Bare Owner Challenge the Wrong Bill?","og_description":"French rules for British families holding a French flat in usufruct and bare ownership: charge allocation, evidence, deadlines and remedies against a wrong co-ownership bill.","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/09\/01\/french-co-ownership-charges-british-usufructuary-bare-owner-after-brexit\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Reda Kohen, Real Estate and Business Law Attorney in Paris","article_published_time":"2026-09-01T02:11:28+00:00","author":"Kohen","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Kohen","Est. reading time":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/09\/01\/french-co-ownership-charges-british-usufructuary-bare-owner-after-brexit\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/09\/01\/french-co-ownership-charges-british-usufructuary-bare-owner-after-brexit\/"},"author":{"name":"Kohen","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/6254a643e6239d803134a01c800381bd"},"headline":"French Co-Ownership Charges After Brexit: Can a British Usufructuary or Bare Owner Challenge the Wrong Bill?","datePublished":"2026-09-01T02:11:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/09\/01\/french-co-ownership-charges-british-usufructuary-bare-owner-after-brexit\/"},"wordCount":5557,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/09\/01\/french-co-ownership-charges-british-usufructuary-bare-owner-after-brexit\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/george-dagerotip-8CdA2foBDnk-unsplash.webp","articleSection":["British Desk","D\u00e9cryptage"],"inLanguage":"en-US","citation":"French Co-Ownership Charges After Brexit: Can a British Usufructuary or Bare Owner Challenge the Wrong Bill?","about":[{"@type":"Thing","name":"British Desk"},{"@type":"Thing","name":"D\u00e9cryptage"}],"dateModified":"2026-09-01T02:11:28+00:00","speakable":{"@type":"SpeakableSpecification","cssSelector":[".article-content > p:first-of-type"]}},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/09\/01\/french-co-ownership-charges-british-usufructuary-bare-owner-after-brexit\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/09\/01\/french-co-ownership-charges-british-usufructuary-bare-owner-after-brexit\/","name":"French Co-Ownership Charges After Brexit: Can a British Usufructuary or Bare Owner Challenge the Wrong Bill? - Ma\u00eetre Reda Kohen, Real Estate and Business Law Attorney in Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/09\/01\/french-co-ownership-charges-british-usufructuary-bare-owner-after-brexit\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/09\/01\/french-co-ownership-charges-british-usufructuary-bare-owner-after-brexit\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/george-dagerotip-8CdA2foBDnk-unsplash.webp","datePublished":"2026-09-01T02:11:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/09\/01\/french-co-ownership-charges-british-usufructuary-bare-owner-after-brexit\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/09\/01\/french-co-ownership-charges-british-usufructuary-bare-owner-after-brexit\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/09\/01\/french-co-ownership-charges-british-usufructuary-bare-owner-after-brexit\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/george-dagerotip-8CdA2foBDnk-unsplash.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/george-dagerotip-8CdA2foBDnk-unsplash.webp","width":4079,"height":6119},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/09\/01\/french-co-ownership-charges-british-usufructuary-bare-owner-after-brexit\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"French Co-Ownership Charges After Brexit: Can a British Usufructuary or Bare Owner Challenge the Wrong Bill?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Reda Kohen, attorney specialized in real estate and business law in Paris, advises and assists companies and individuals in their real estate, commercial and contractual transactions. He also handles real estate litigation and the resolution of complex commercial disputes.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/6254a643e6239d803134a01c800381bd","name":"Kohen","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1c5e76ef76bbbfdd2b4da984e2bf2fa4056fd51a27d25ce2c332047f1dfd6e00?s=96&d=identicon&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1c5e76ef76bbbfdd2b4da984e2bf2fa4056fd51a27d25ce2c332047f1dfd6e00?s=96&d=identicon&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1c5e76ef76bbbfdd2b4da984e2bf2fa4056fd51a27d25ce2c332047f1dfd6e00?s=96&d=identicon&r=g","caption":"Kohen"},"url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/author\/kohenmlk\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2114600","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/251031309"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2114600"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2114600\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/16529"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2114600"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2114600"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2114600"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}