A landlocked plot reaches the public road by a path that crosses a neighbour’s land, and the landlocked state arose from a division. Should article 684 of the French Civil Code apply, which sends the right of way onto the land resulting from the division, or should the path used for thirty years be retained? In a reported decision of 2 October 2025, the Third Civil Chamber of the Cour de cassation (the French supreme court for civil matters) gives priority to the route (assiette, the strip of land crossed) acquired by thirty years’ continuous use, even on land unconnected with the division. The land that bears the right of way, and therefore the indemnity to be quantified, then depend on the proof of that use.
The facts
An owner held a plot adjoining, on one side, a neighbour’s land and, on the other, land held by two persons as bare owner (nue-propriétaire) and usufructuary (usufruitière) respectively. The latter objected to her passage along a path that crosses their property and gives access to the public road. The owner sued them, together with the other neighbour, for recognition of a right of way.
The first-instance judgment recognised for her land a statutory right of way (servitude légale de passage), acquired by thirty-year prescription, along the path running beside the objectors’ plot, and instructed a consultant (a technician asked by the court for an opinion) to determine that plot’s loss.
On 18 January 2024 the Bordeaux Court of Appeal reversed those parts of the judgment: the right of way had to be created over the other neighbour’s land, with compensation from the landlocked owner, and the consultant would look for the best possible route and determine her loss. In the court’s view, the rule in article 684, which requires the right of way to be claimed over the land resulting from the division that directly created the landlocked state, could not be set aside by use, even for thirty years, of a passage over the objectors’ land. It also found that use not proved: one witness statement did not give the dates on which its author saw the previous owner using the passage, and another mentioned a gate on the site only since 2017. A second judgment, of 6 June 2024, followed from the first. The other neighbour appealed to the Cour de cassation.
The decision
The Cour de cassation quashed the judgment of 18 January 2024 on those points (Cass. 3e civ., 2 October 2025, appeals no. 24-12.678 and 24-18.031, reported), under articles 684, paragraph 1, and 685, paragraph 1, of the Civil Code.
Restating a rule already applied in 2003 (Cass. 3e civ., 19 March 2003, no. 01-00.855), the Court recalled that “the determination of the route of a right of way by thirty years’ continuous use renders the provisions of article 684 of the Civil Code inapplicable” (translated from the French). It inferred that, “if the landlocked state of a property results from a division, the route of the right of way giving it access is the one acquired by thirty-year prescription, even if it lies on land not resulting from the division”. By holding that thirty years’ use could not set aside article 684, “the Court of Appeal violated the above-mentioned provisions”.
It also quashed under article 455 of the Code of Civil Procedure: the Court of Appeal had dismissed thirty years’ use, relying on two witness statements, “without analysing, even briefly, exhibits 1, 3, 5, 15 and 18” produced to prove it. The judgment of 6 June 2024 was annulled as a consequence, and the case was sent back to the Toulouse Court of Appeal.
The Court does not say where the path runs: that depends on the proof of thirty years’ use, which the court on remittal will examine. The decision of 20 November 2025, discussed in Landlocked plot after division: right of way on the divided land, applies article 684 strictly without ruling on thirty years’ use. The two decisions complement each other: the division rule applies, unless a route has already been acquired by such use.
What this changes for valuation
Two possible servient plots, two sets of figures. Until thirty years’ use is held established, the servient plot (the land bearing the right of way) may be the land crossed by the existing path or the land where a passage would have to be created, and any indemnity changes beneficiary. On a path used for many years, the footprint and the route are known, and the land crossed is valued as burdened by it; the indemnity claim may become time-barred without the passage ceasing (article 685, paragraph 2), a question the decision does not address. On the other land, everything remains to be done: footprint on unencumbered land, works, possible severance of the plot, loss of privacy; the passage is taken on the shortest side but at the place causing least damage (article 683). The Court of Appeal had ordered the landlocked owner to pay an indemnity; that order was quashed with the others, without the Court ruling on the principle or amount of the indemnity. Pending remittal, the report gains from quantifying both scenarios, value before and after the passage, with the same method. How the indemnity is split between several landlocked plots is covered in Landlocked land in France: one right-of-way indemnity per user.
A burden the title deed does not mention. The right of way for landlocked land is statutory and, where article 685 applies, its route arises from use: the buyer of land crossed by a landlocked neighbour’s path may discover a burden the title deed ignores. During the inspection, the valuer records paths, gates, ruts and accesses serving a neighbouring property and notes their apparent age, and the report measures the effect on value. What a court expects before compensating a discount is illustrated in Claiming loss of enjoyment and devaluation of a French home.
For the landlocked plot, access drives value. An acquired route gives access along a known line; a right of way still to be obtained means works, an indemnity and uncertain proceedings, which a buyer builds into the price. The valuation therefore starts with the origin of the landlocked state and the history of the path.
Proof of use is prepared. The decision requires the judge to analyse the evidence produced on use; dated, consistent documents make it easier to establish. The valuer does not judge the evidence, but the report can gather and date what is observed or consulted: condition and width of the path, structures, old aerial photographs, plans.
What the valuer takes from it
- Thirty years’ continuous use fixes the route of the right of way and sets article 684 aside, even over land outside the division.
- Until the use is held established, the report quantifies both scenarios: existing path and passage to be created.
- The indemnity is measured on the land actually crossed: footprint, route, nuisance, value before and after the passage.
- A route acquired by use may appear in no title deed: the inspection records paths serving a neighbouring property.
- The judge must analyse the evidence produced on thirty years’ use; dated, consistent documents, which the report can gather, make it easier to prove.
Further reading
The Property loss of value page describes the assignment, its timescale and its fee. The guide Producing a valuation in a French court: which format to choose? and the glossary entries moins-value, préjudice immobilier and comparable complement this article. On the article 684 rule: Landlocked plot after division: right of way on the divided land. On the same theme: Landlocked land in France: one right-of-way indemnity per user and Encroachment: demolition is due, and the strip of land has a price. The decision is available on Légifrance.
What next
A path used for many years, or a right of way to create over another neighbour's land?
I quantify the loss of value of the land crossed for each possible route, existing path or passage to be created, and the value of the landlocked plot according to its access, for an agreement between neighbours or for the court.
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).
