Extract
[...] In this case, Sandrine is the owner of the property, while Franck has a right of use and habitation on said property. Therefore, having both rights on this property, they are co-indivisaries of the indivisible property. Furthermore, no one can be forced to remain in the indivision, so that the partition can always be provoked (article 815 of the Civil Code). In this case, Sandrine requests the partition of the indivisible property. Thus, Franck was assigned on the basis of the partition of the indivisible property. [...]
[...] Thus, this means will not allow Franck to hinder Sandrine's request for partition. On the indivision between an owner and a holder of the right of use and habitation The owner holds theusus, theabusus and the fructus on the good, while the holder of the right of use and habitation holds only on theusus. There exists between the owner of a good and the holder of a right of use and habitation on this good, a co-ownership as to this right of use and habitation (Cass. civ. 3e July 2016, n°15-10.278). [...]
[...] civ. 1he June 1996, n°94-18.879), taking into account the locative value of the property (Cass. civ. 1er October 1992, n°91-10.773), without, however, relying solely on this value (Cass. civ. 1he December 1994, n°92-20.780). In this case, Sandrine will be liable for a compensation, calculated from the rental value of the property, without this being the only value taken into account. Thus, Sandrine is entitled to an occupation indemnity in favor of Franck, due to her private occupation of the property. [...]
[...] On the indemnity for occupation When an indivisary enjoys the indivisible thing privately, he is, in principle, liable for an indemnity for occupation (article 815-9 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code) when his maintenance in the premises is incompatible with the concurrent rights of another indivisary (Cass. civ. 1he October 2011, n°10-21.802). The private enjoyment of an indivisible building results from the impossibility of law or fact, for co-owners, to use the thing (Cass. civ. 1he March 2016, n°15-10.748). In this case, Sandrine has exclusive possession of the thing in that she has placed a new lock on the building, thus preventing Franck from accessing the undivided property. Therefore, her occupation being incompatible with Franck's rights on the property, Sandrine is liable for an occupation indemnity. [...]
