A buyer acquires a château in 2006 with, for twenty-five years, a preference pact over the plots surrounding it. Those plots are let under a farm lease (bail rural) to a farming company, which buys them in 2014 by exercising its right of pre-emption. The owner of the château seeks annulment of the sale and substitution: the company had not proved it complied with the farm structures control, and everything had been arranged to empty his pact of substance. The Nîmes Court of Appeal dismisses him, and on 2 April 2026 the Cour de cassation (the French supreme court for civil matters) rejected his appeal in a reported decision: the statutes do not require the tenant to prove the farming conditions in advance, they organise an a posteriori control; and fraud is not established, the agreed farm rent not being derisory against the rental value fixed by the administrative authority. That last test is the valuer’s.
The facts
On 15 March 2005 Mr M. lets four plots under a farm lease to a company, succeeded by a farming company (SCEA). On 26 August 2006 Mr A. buys from Mr M. and his mother a château and plots; the deed stipulates a preference pact in his favour, for twenty-five years, notably over six plots surrounding the château, including the four let. On 1 January 2008 Mr M. lets the two other plots to the same SCEA under a farm lease. On 29 August 2014 the six plots are sold to the SCEA, which exercised its right of pre-emption as sitting tenant.
Mr A. sues for annulment of the sale and substitution, alleging fraud on his rights. After a first quashing, the Nîmes Court of Appeal, on 17 October 2024, rejects his claims, including damages for the lost chance to acquire.
The decision
The third civil chamber dismissed the appeal (Cass. 3e civ., 2 April 2026, no. 24-22.496, reported).
On the conditions of pre-emption, it substitutes a ground of pure law: articles L. 412-5 and L. 412-12 of the Rural and Maritime Fishing Code “do not make the exercise of the right of pre-emption by the farmer subject to compliance with the conditions laid down by article L. 411-59 of the same code, but organise an a posteriori control of the conditions under which the farmer must farm the pre-empted land”. The pre-emptor must farm personally; failing that, “the evicted buyer may claim damages awarded by the rural leases courts”, during the nine-year period of personal farming.
On fraud, the Court of Appeal rightly held “that only proof of a fraudulent collusion between the seller and the tenant aimed at depriving Mr A. of his right of preference could entail the nullity of the sale”; it found within its sovereign power that the SCEA did not know of the pact when the 2008 lease was made, and “noted that the agreed farm rent, in view of the rental value fixed by the administrative authority for land in the natural region where the let property lies, was not derisory”. Fraudulent collusion is not shown.
What this changes for valuation
Pre-emption against a preference pact. The tenant farmer’s right of pre-emption is a matter of public policy; it prevails over a contractual preference pact granted to a third party. The holder of the pact can have the sale annulled only by proving fraud, that is a lease concluded in collusion with the seller for the sole purpose of creating a pre-emptor. Proof is made by facts: the date of the lease against the pact, links between the persons, the tenant’s knowledge of the pact, and above all the economic reality of the lease.
Farm rent as the test of fraud. A sham farm lease is often recognised by its price: a derisory rent, or one never paid, betrays the absence of a genuine landlord-tenant relationship. The benchmark is the prefectoral order which fixes, by natural region and category of land, the minimum and maximum rental values of bare land and farm buildings, under article L. 411-11 of the Rural and Maritime Fishing Code. The valuer places the agreed rent within that range, per hectare, taking into account the crops, here land around a château in a wine-growing region, and the condition of the plots. A rent within the range, regularly paid, disposes of the argument, as in this case.
What the preference pact was protecting. For the owner of a château, the surrounding plots are worth more than their agricultural value: they protect the views, the access, the unity of the estate, and their reunion with the château creates a value of convenience that ordinary land sales do not reflect. The lost chance to acquire is quantified from that gap, between what the plots are worth to the estate and what they are worth to a farmer, weighted by the probability that the sale would have gone to the pact holder. The claim was rejected here for want of fraud, but the method remains the same when fraud is established.
The a posteriori control and its indemnity. The farmer who pre-empted must farm personally for nine years. If he does not, the evicted buyer obtains damages before the rural leases court, within that period. The loss is the same as above: the value the acquisition would have had for him, less the price, and it must be documented at the date of the pre-empted sale, not at the date of judgment.
For the seller of an estate with let land. A preference pact granted over let land is worth little while the lease runs: the tenant comes first. The valuation report accompanying the sale of a château with plots flags it, and values the let land with the discount that goes with it, because neither seller nor buyer controls its fate.
What the valuer takes from it
- The tenant farmer pre-empts without having to prove in advance that he meets the farming conditions; the control is a posteriori, with damages for the evicted buyer over nine years.
- The holder of a preference pact obtains annulment only by proving fraudulent collusion between seller and tenant.
- The farm rent is compared with the minimum and maximum of the prefectoral order for the natural region; a rent within the range disposes of the sham-lease argument.
- The lost chance to acquire is quantified by the gap between the plots’ value to the estate and their agricultural value, weighted by a probability.
- Over let land, a preference pact ranks after pre-emption; the valuation of the land takes that into account.
Further reading
The Compulsory purchase and pre-emption page describes the assignment, its timescale and its fee. The glossary entries droit de préemption, valeur locative and décote pour occupation complement this article. On the same theme: Farm tenant pre-emption: an indivisible whole has one owner and Equestrian centre farm rent: the global clause is unlawful. The decision is available on Légifrance.
What next
A preference pact over land, a tenant who pre-empts, and a lost chance to quantify?
I establish the value of the plots for the estate around them, the reference rental value of the land and the amount of the lost chance to acquire, with the prefectoral orders and the references of the area.
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).
