An expropriated landlord loses more than the property itself: until another property has been bought and let, no rent comes in. If that head of loss was not claimed at first instance, can it be claimed for the first time on appeal? In a reported decision of 9 April 2026, the Third Civil Chamber of the Cour de cassation (the French supreme court for civil and commercial matters) answers yes: the claim is ancillary to the claim for principal compensation (indemnité principale). For the valuer, it is a head of loss in its own right, to be quantified and supported like the value of the property.
The facts
An owner’s co-ownership lots (lots de copropriété, units in a co-owned building) are compulsorily purchased (expropriation) for the benefit of two Montpellier bodies: a development company and a public establishment.
In a judgment of 15 March 2024, the Montpellier Court of Appeal set the compensation for dispossession owed to the expropriated owner and awarded him, among other things, compensation for loss of rental income. That claim was made for the first time on appeal. According to the appeal judgment, as quoted in the appeal to the Cour de cassation, the court held it admissible as “a claim ancillary to the principal claim for compensation for the loss resulting from the dispossession” (translated from the French, like all quotations here). The Cour de cassation’s decision states neither the number nor the type of the lots, nor the amounts awarded.
The two acquiring bodies appealed to the Cour de cassation. Their second ground of appeal relied on article 566 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, which allows the parties to add to the claims put to the first judge only “claims that are ancillary to them, a consequence of them or their necessary complement”: in their view, compensation for lost rental income is not ancillary to a claim for expropriation compensation.
The decision
The Cour de cassation dismissed the appeal (Cass. 3e civ., 9 April 2026, appeal no. 24-15.296, reported decision). The first ground was rejected without specific reasoning (article 1014, paragraph 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure).
On the second ground, the Court held: “The claim for compensation for loss of rental income, during the time needed by the expropriated owner to acquire another property and let it, which pursues the same aim of compensating the loss resulting from the expropriation, is ancillary to the claim for principal compensation for dispossession.” It concluded: “It follows that such a claim, made for the first time on appeal, is admissible.”
In principle, the parties may not put new claims to the Court of Appeal (article 564 of the Code of Civil Procedure); article 566 nevertheless admits those that are ancillary to, a consequence of or a necessary complement to the claims made at first instance. The Court treats lost rental income as ancillary to the principal compensation because it serves the same purpose: making good the loss caused by the expropriation.
The scope of the decision has two limits. The loss in question is that of the time needed to acquire another property and let it. And, on the second ground, the Court rules only on admissibility: it says nothing about whether this head of loss is well founded under article L. 321-1 of the French Expropriation Code, which requires full compensation of the direct, material and certain loss, or about its amount. The content of the first ground is not set out in the decision.
Two other recent decisions of the same chamber decide separate points, one on a partial taking (Partial compulsory purchase: classify the plot, not the strip), the other on decontamination deducted from the compensation (Decontamination deducted but not done: owner may seek an expert).
What this changes for valuation
A head separate from value and reinvestment. The principal compensation pays for the property: the Charte de l’expertise en évaluation immobilière (the French property valuation charter) describes it as being as close as possible to the market value of the property in its state of occupation, together with ancillary compensation covering every element of the loss suffered (6th edition, November 2025, Title III, § 1.20). The reinvestment allowance (indemnité de remploi) covers the costs of acquiring a replacement property: transfer duties, conveyancing costs, fees. Lost rental income compensates something else: the period during which the owner receives no rent. The report presents these heads separately, each with its documents, with no double counting or omission. The Court likewise held that the landlocking of a garage the owners kept was not covered by the reinvestment allowance (Compulsory purchase: landlocked remaining garage is compensated).
Net rent, justified duration. The starting rent is the one the owner actually received, as shown by the leases and receipts. The report reasons in net terms: it deducts the non-recoverable charges the owner will stop bearing once dispossessed. The duration follows the decision’s wording, the time needed to acquire another property and let it, and breaks down into stages that local references can support: the search for a comparable property, the time between the preliminary contract and the deed, any refurbishment, then the vacancy before the first letting. An unjustified duration invites the same dispute as a percentage without references.
As an illustration, with fictitious figures: a flat let at €520 per month, on which the owner bears €70 of non-recoverable charges, yields €450 net per month; if local references justify nine months to buy a comparable property and relet it, the head comes to €4,050.
The right moment: the first submissions. The decision allows a claim omitted at first instance to be made on appeal, but does not exempt the parties from the expropriation appeal timetable. Article R. 311-26 of the French Expropriation Code requires the appellant, then the respondent, to file submissions and documents within three months; after that, only submissions purely in reply, and their supporting documents, are admitted, as the decision of 5 February 2026 discussed in Compulsory purchase: the appeal court must rule on late documents recalls. The two decisions complement each other: one says which claim may be added on appeal, the other recalls the time limit of article R. 311-26 and requires the judge to rule on the admissibility of late filings. The safest course remains to quantify the lost rent in the submissions to the expropriation judge; failing that, in the first submissions on appeal.
What the valuer takes from it
- Lost rental income, during the time needed to buy and relet, is ancillary to the principal compensation: it may be claimed for the first time on appeal.
- On the second ground, the Court rules on admissibility, not on the amount: the head is proved like the others, with documents.
- The report quantifies a net rent, taken from the leases and receipts, over a duration supported by local market references.
- Lost rent is presented separately from the principal compensation and the reinvestment allowance, with no double counting.
- The figure belongs, preferably, in the first submissions; on appeal, it must respect the time limits of article R. 311-26.
Further reading
The Compulsory purchase and pre-emption page describes the assignment before the expropriation judge, its timescale and its fee. The Situations guide on compulsory purchase of business premises, useful here for the procedure before the expropriation judge, and the glossary entries indemnité principale, indemnité de remploi and juge de l’expropriation complement this article. On related points: Partial compulsory purchase: classify the plot, not the strip and Decontamination deducted but not done: owner may seek an expert. On the same theme: Compulsory purchase: the appeal court must rule on late documents and Silent owner in compulsory purchase: award may exceed the offer. The decision is available on Légifrance.
What next
Is your let property being compulsorily purchased, with the rent about to stop?
I quantify the principal compensation and the loss of rental income during the time needed to buy and relet, from the leases, the rent receipts and the local market. The report sets out each head with its supporting documents, for submissions to the expropriation judge or the Court of Appeal.
Free quote, by email or by phone. No commitment before the quote is accepted. Fees are never linked to the value of the property (Charte de l’expertise, Title I, §2.1).
