Buyers find cracks after moving in, then learn that the seller had structural works carried out on the foundations two years before the sale, without saying so. The sale is annulled for fraud (dol). But the seller, who must return the price, in turn claims compensation for the years the buyers lived in the house. The Court of Appeal refuses; the Cour de cassation (the French supreme court for civil matters) quashes. The decision of the Third Civil Chamber of 9 April 2026 recalls the two sides of an annulment, and what a valuation report must quantify on each side.
The facts
By deed of 28 February 2018, a couple bought a dwelling house for €230,000 with a bank loan. The deed contained a declaration by the seller that, to her knowledge, no construction or renovation had been carried out in the previous ten years. After moving in, the buyers noticed cracks and discovered that the seller had dealt for several years with structural problems, including structural works on the foundations in 2016. They sued for annulment of the sale for fraud.
On 29 May 2024 the Rouen Court of Appeal annulled the sale and the loans, ordered the seller to return the price and to pay the deed costs and damages, but dismissed her counterclaim for an occupation indemnity: since annulment is retroactive, she could not obtain compensation “corresponding to the mere occupation of the property”.
The decision
The Cour de cassation dismissed the seller’s appeal on the fraud and quashed on the occupation indemnity (Cass. 3e civ., 9 April 2026, appeal no. 24-17.405).
The fraud. The seller argued that the buyers knew of the works, a witness stating that they had been told during a viewing. The Court approved the Court of Appeal for finding “that the mere summary mention of works during viewings, in particular the repair of the cellar staircase, was insufficient to inform the buyers of the action taken on the foundations, and that the scale of the works carried out and the recurrence of the cracking and damp problems they were meant to end gave the information the seller should have given the buyers a decisive importance” (translated from the French). The seller “having knowingly omitted to disclose the interventions on the foundations”, consent was vitiated.
The use. Under article 1352-3, first paragraph, of the French Civil Code, by which “restitution includes the fruits and the value of the use that the thing has provided”, the Court censured the dismissal of the indemnity: the buyers, who return the house, must also return the value of the use they had of it. The retroactive effect of annulment does not prevent that; it requires it.
What this changes for the valuation
An annulment is quantified in two columns. On one side, what the seller owes: the price, plus damages for her fault where appropriate, deed costs included, as another decision of January 2026 held. On the other, what the buyer owes: the value of the use of the property since the sale and, in the opposite direction, reimbursement of the useful expenses incurred to preserve it. A report that establishes only one column leaves the other to the judge’s discretion, without references.
The value of use is a rental value. For a dwelling house, use is measured by the rent the property would have produced over the period, established by comparison with lettings in the area, for a property in the condition it was in, that is, with its defects. A cracked, damp house whose foundations have been underpinned does not let at the price of a sound one; the deduction is justified by the condition found, not by the precariousness of the occupation, which is not at issue here since the buyers believed they were owners. Over six or eight years of proceedings, this indemnity represents a significant share of the price returned, which explains what was at stake in the appeal.
The valuation date, year by year. Rental value changes; the report fixes it by period, with the references of each year, rather than applying a single rent to the whole duration. The same goes for useful expenses, quantified at their amount supported by invoices, within the limit of the added value they brought to the property (article 1352-5).
The fraud itself. The decision confirms what the Third Civil Chamber has held since 2019 for subsidence claims: a vague mention of works does not replace information on their nature and on the defects they addressed. For a seller, the useful document is the complete file of interventions, invoices and reports attached, annexed to the deed; for a buyer, an expert’s report before the sale, when cracks or repairs are visible, fixes the condition of the property and the price that goes with it.
What the expert takes from it
- Concealing works on the foundations, even while mentioning cellar works during viewings, is fraudulent non-disclosure when the defects addressed were recurrent.
- Annulment requires the buyer to return the value of use, calculated on the rental value of the property in the condition it was in.
- The valuation report quantifies both columns: restitutions and losses on one side, use and useful expenses on the other.
- Rental value is fixed by period, with the references of each year.
- An expert’s report before the sale, when cracks are visible, avoids the dispute or sets its basis.
Further reading
The Property loss of value page describes the assignment, its timescale and its fee. The glossary entries vice caché, indemnité d’occupation and valeur locative, and the guide I paid too much: can I challenge the price?, complement this article. On the same theme: Sale annulled for noise: a lost capital gain must be certain and Seller’s fraud: claiming the excess price without annulment. The decision is available on Légifrance.
What next
A sale annulled, or to be annulled, for a hidden defect in the house?
I quantify both columns of the account: what the seller returns and repairs, and the value of the use the buyer must give back, from the rental value of the property and the length of occupation.
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).
