Nullity of Eviction Order due to Co-ownership's Lack of Legal Personality

Extract

[...] When a co-ownership is involved in contracts, it cannot contract as a distinct entity due to this lack of legal personality. In such cases, it is necessary to designate a third party, usually through a mandate, to act on behalf of all co-owners. The third party acts as a representative of the co-owners, and in the event of a dispute, they are required to act against each co-owner individually, rather than against the entire group. Therefore, due to its lack of legal personality, a command addressed to a co-ownership is devoid of validity and has no legal effect. [...]

[...] When the order is issued by a co-ownership, it is tainted with a fundamental irregularity. This means that the act is null, i.e. it is devoid of legal effects. The nullity of the order to vacate the premises in the absence of regularization is a direct consequence of the lack of legal personality of the co-ownership. Article 121 of the Civil Procedure Code leaves a possibility of regularization for acts tainted with a fundamental irregularity if the cause disappears. In fact, it would be necessary for all members of the co-ownership to be mentioned as landlord. [...]

[...] The lack of legal personality for a co-ownership means that the co-ownership as an entity does not have the capacity to sue in court. The co-ownership cannot therefore bring legal proceedings in its own name, unlike legal entities with moral personality, such as companies or associations. Therefore, each co-owner, as a physical person, must act individually if they wish to bring a legal action. Thus, the direct consequence of this lack of legal personality is the declaration of nullity of the act for irregularity of substance in the case where no regularization is carried out. [...]

[...] The tenant decided to contest the regularity of the notice before the court of first instance on 28 May 2008. The tenant was dismissed from her application and appealed. The court of appeal rejected the tenant's request on the grounds, on the one hand, that the act had been duly served in the name and on behalf of the co-ownership and, on the other hand, that the tenant had been given two years to relocate. She therefore lodged an appeal with the Court of Cassation. [...]

[...] According to him, the indivision is a kind of co-ownership of various heirs and he has never gone so far as to recognize legal personality to this oneloi adopted on 31 December 1976 and 23 June 2006). It constitutes a modality of exercise of rights whose ownership is shared between several co-indivisaries. They are considered as the only holders of a right on the indivisible property. The co-indivisaries are the true owners of the indivisible shares. Thus, this ruling highlights a constant position of the Court of Cassation that is justified by a certain instability of this institution. [...]