A co-owner unhappy with a decision voted on at a general meeting has the right to challenge it before a judge, but this right expires quickly: after two months, the action is, with few exceptions, definitively closed.<\/p>\n
The status of co-ownership, established by Law No. 65-557 of 10 July 1965, strictly governs these challenges. Article 42, paragraph 2, stipulates that any legal action seeking to contest decisions made at general meetings must, on pain of forfeiture, be initiated by dissenting or absent co-owners within two months of notification of the meeting minutes. This notification is the responsibility of the managing agent, who must carry it out within one month of the meeting being held. Only co-owners who voted against the decision (dissenting) or were absent and unrepresented (absent) can take action; those who voted in favour or abstained are barred from this recourse.<\/p>\n
It should be stressed that this period is not a statute of limitations but a period of preclusion. The distinction is not theoretical: upon its expiry, the decision becomes incontestable, regardless of the seriousness of the alleged procedural or substantive irregularity. The starting point of the period deserves particular attention. According to consistent case law from the Court of Cassation, when notification is made by registered letter, the period runs from the day after the first presentation of the item, regardless of whether the co-owner actually collected it from the post office. The recipient who neglects to collect their mail therefore gains no additional time.<\/p>\n
An important exception tempers this strictness. The notification of the minutes must reproduce the text of Article 42, paragraph 2. In the absence of this mention, the notification is irregular and does not open the two-month period: the co-owner can then act within the general limitation period, i.e. five years. Furthermore, an application for legal aid filed after the meeting has been held may interrupt the running of the period.<\/p>\n
In practice, a co-owner wishing to challenge a resolution must act without delay. They need to keep the envelope and the acknowledgement of receipt, note the date of the first presentation, and verify that the notification correctly reproduces the mention of Article 42. The managing agent, for their part, has every interest in ensuring the formal regularity of their notifications, failing which they expose the co-ownership to a challenge long after the meeting.<\/p>\n
Given the short deadline and the strictness of the foreclosure, it is strongly advised to consult a lawyer as soon as the minutes are received, in order to assess the chances of success and to take the necessary action within the time limit.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Un copropri\u00e9taire m\u00e9content d’une d\u00e9cision vot\u00e9e en assembl\u00e9e g\u00e9n\u00e9rale dispose d’un droit de contestation devant le juge, mais ce droit s’\u00e9teint vite : pass\u00e9 deux mois, l’action est, sauf exception, d\u00e9finitivement ferm\u00e9e. Le statut de la copropri\u00e9t\u00e9, fix\u00e9 par la loi n\u00b0 65-557 du 10 juillet 1965, organise \u00e9troitement cette contestation. Son article 42, alin\u00e9a […]<\/p>\n