Extract
[...] The evaluation of the private enjoyment compensation falls, on the other hand, within the sovereign power of the judges of the facts (Civ 1ère June 1987). Minor: In this case, since July 2018, Bérengère has decided to occupy the family home while maintaining it and paying various charges and taxes. She has therefore used and enjoyed the house, the undivided property. She did so in accordance with its destination, as no overflow seems to have been observed or brought to the fore. In addition, none of the other co-owners seems to have been against this occupation. [...]
[...] It does not appear that Noah is here the holder of at least two-thirds of the undivided rights as required by the Code to take unilateral decisions. We can assume here that the three co-owners are each holders of one-third. Noah therefore did not have to perform administrative acts (works/rental) without the agreement of his sisters on the property, unless the distribution of shares is other than one-third each. The judge will sovereignly appreciate whether these acts fall within the conservation of the property: in this case, each of the co-owners can undertake initiatives. [...]
[...] In February 2018, a convention of indivision is signed by the three heirs concerning the family home. This convention is signed for a duration of five years, renewable by tacit renewal and this, in the presence of the notary. In 2015, the father of the sisters passed away, so the sister heirs were already in a position of indivision concerning, on the one hand, the secondary residence of the aforementioned father and, on the other hand, a studio. In July 2018, Bérengère decides to occupy the family home, maintaining it and paying the various charges and taxes related to this house. [...]
[...] In addition, although the Code provides for the possibility of renewal, it only provides for a renewal by an express decision of the co-owners. However, in this case, in fact, the convention is tacitly renewable, meaning that the contract automatically renews without the parties having explicitly given their consent. This is not permitted by the legislator. The notary has failed in his duty of counsel. Conclusion: The agreement signed by the co-owners before the notary for a period of five years, renewable by tacit renewal, is null and void. [...]
[...] Major: Article 815-14, paragraph provides that 'The co-owner who intends to transfer, for consideration, to a person foreign to the co-ownership, all or part of their rights in the undivided goods or in one or more of these goods, is required to notify by extrajudicial deed to the other co-owners the price and conditions of the proposed transfer as well as the name, domicile and profession of the person who proposes to acquire.' This provision applies to all undivided estates of both succession and non-succession origin (Civ 1ère April 1985) Minor: In this case, Louise therefore transferred her shares to a third party, Jean-Baptiste. Since she no longer speaks to her sisters, it seems unlikely that she has applied the obligation that is hers to notify, by extrajudicial deed to the other co-owners, among other things, the price and conditions of the proposed transfer. This would have allowed the co-owners to exercise a right of preemption. [...]
