“When co-ownership is played for two!”, Caroline THEUIL

In a recent article, Caroline Theuil addressed the problem of majority co-owners. Going more precisely to this topic, it is interesting to forget about co-ownership with only two co-owners, a fairly widespread model at the end…

When I speak of co-ownership with two co-owners, I am expressly referring to buildings subject to the law of July 10, 1965 that establishes the status of co-ownership of constructed buildings, in which “reigns” in all and for all, two, and only two, distinct owners.

Until recently, this type of co-ownership was mostly subject to the terms of article 22 of the 1965 law, but the ordinance of October 30, 2019 has considerably changed the situation in this area. Since the promulgation of this ordinance, the law of 65 includes a section regarding the specific provisions for unions whose number of votes is shared between two co-owners (art. 10 1965 that fixes the status of the co-ownership of constructed buildings) .

The legislator mainly wanted to ease the obligations generally applicable in the matter of co-ownership, by not making it systematic, for example, the holding of a general assembly. Indeed, once the two co-owners agree on a decision, it can now be taken outside any general meeting, it is up to the co-owners to register it in the register of minutes of the general meeting in order to guarantee its validity (art. 41-17 and 41-18 law of 1965). So the convocations are out, the presentation in good and proper form, the development of the agenda… the only thing left is the obligation to establish a report.

What about unilateral decisions? The new article 41-17 of the law of 65 specifies that in this case, the unilateral decision must be notified to the second co-owner (preferably by registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt). But this decision, even if it emanates from a majority co-owner, cannot be definitively imposed on the second co-owner, the latter having the possibility to contest it by virtue of article 42 of the same law. The legislation goes even further, since the minority co-owner who considers that the majority co-owner prevents the carrying out of the works essential to the maintenance of the building, has the right to decide unilaterally on the condition of respecting the procedure of notification

Another particularity of the 2019 order: the legal or even financial security of co-ownership.

Indeed, in the presence of a voluntary trustee, the latter can now delegate his powers when he is faced with a complex situation in which he is considered incompetent. This specific delegation to a third party must be done in agreement with the second co-owner (article 41-14 law of 1965).

In the face of unpaid charges, the 2019 ordinance also gives weight to the co-owner who does not occupy the role of trustee: he can take action against the second co-owner who combines the role of voluntary trustee and bad payer. In other words, the fact of being a trustee can no longer prevent the recovery of the charges and also the payment of the provisions on the charges under articles 14-1 and 14-2 of the law of 65 .

Finally, the 2019 ordinance significantly eases the legal obligations regarding union council (no obligation to appoint a union council) and accounting (no obligation to maintain double-entry bookkeeping, each co-owner being able to incur expenses provided that a register). can be consulted by both co-owners).

Don’t miss out either

Even to read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *