A house let since 2012 belongs, after the landlord’s death, to a large joint ownership (indivision). Eleven people presenting themselves as the joint landlords serve the tenant with a notice to sell (congé pour vendre). One co-owner has not agreed. The Riom Court of Appeal upholds the notice: the missing consent only makes the sale unenforceable against the absent co-owner, and the tenant proves no prejudice. On 2 July 2026 the Cour de cassation (the French supreme court for civil matters) quashed that ruling: a notice to sell is an offer of sale, an act of disposal that requires the unanimous consent of the co-owners; the lack of authority is a substantive defect, which the tenant may invoke without proving prejudice. For those preparing the sale of a let family property, the ruling says in what order to do things, and at what price.
The facts
On 12 July 2012 a man and his daughter let a dwelling house. The father dies on 18 August 2019. On 8 January 2021 a notice to sell, taking effect on 11 July 2021, is served on the tenant by eleven people presenting themselves as the joint landlords; on 18 February 2021 the same people serve him with a demand for payment invoking the forfeiture clause. The tenant sues them for annulment of the notice and of the demand.
The Riom Court of Appeal, on 11 June 2024, finds that one co-owner had not agreed to the service of the notice, but holds it valid: the lack of consent of all co-owners would only have made the sale to the tenant, had he pre-empted, unenforceable against the absent co-owner; and the irregularity, not a substantive one, requires a prejudice the tenant does not prove.
The decision
The third civil chamber quashed the judgment (Cass. 3e civ., 2 July 2026, no. 25-13.188), under articles 815-3 of the Civil Code, 15 of the Act of 6 July 1989 and 117 of the Code of Civil Procedure: “save where necessary to pay the debts and charges of the joint ownership, acts of disposal relating to jointly owned property require the consent of all the co-owners”; “the notice constitutes an offer of sale to the tenant”; “a party’s lack of authority constitutes a substantive defect affecting the validity of the act”, which may be invoked without proving prejudice.
Hence the quashing: “the notice to sell must be served with the unanimous consent of all the co-owners and the co-owners’ lack of authority constitutes a substantive defect, affecting the validity of the act, which the tenant may invoke without having to prove prejudice”. Remittal to the Lyon Court of Appeal.
What this changes for valuation
A notice to sell is an offer, therefore a price. The notice served to sell a let dwelling states the price and terms of the intended sale, and constitutes an offer to the tenant, who has two months to accept. If the landlord then sells to a third party on more favourable terms, the notary must notify the tenant of the new offer. The price in the notice is therefore not an opening figure for negotiation: it is a price one may be held to, and a price that cannot be lowered without going back to the tenant. It must be established as a market price, with references, before service.
Vacant or let. A notice to sell is given for the end of the lease; if it is valid and the tenant does not buy, the property sells vacant. But if the notice is void, as here, the lease continues, and the property is worth only its let value, with the discount that comes with a sitting tenant. The difference between the two values is what the co-owners lost by serving an irregular notice, on top of months of proceedings. A preliminary valuation presents both values so that everyone measures what is at stake.
Unanimity first. A notice to sell commits the whole joint ownership; the written agreement of each co-owner is needed, including those who are far away or disagree on the price. The valuation report, given to all, serves precisely to obtain that agreement: a documented price is argued over less than a price put forward by some. Failing unanimity, the route is judicial authorisation, not a notice served by some of the co-owners, which falls.
The demand for payment and strategy. In this case the co-owners had coupled the notice with a demand invoking the forfeiture clause. When the sale is the aim, the regularity of the notice matters more than pressure on the tenant; a void notice leaves a protected tenant in place and a property that will not sell at the hoped-for price.
For the tenant. A tenant offered the chance to buy his home is well advised to know what it is worth vacant, since he buys it for himself. An opinion of value lets him answer the notice knowingly and, if the price offered is clearly above the market, let it pass in the knowledge that any sale to a third party at a lower price will have to be offered to him.
What the valuer takes from it
- A notice to sell jointly owned property requires the consent of all co-owners; otherwise it is void, with no prejudice to prove.
- The price in the notice constitutes an offer of sale and binds: it is set as a market price before service.
- A void notice lets the lease run; the property is then worth its let value, not its vacant value, and the gap measures the loss.
- A valuation report given to all the co-owners makes unanimity on the price easier.
- The tenant served with a notice to sell also has an interest in knowing the vacant value of the dwelling.
Further reading
The Market value page describes the assignment, its timescale and its fee. The guides Inheritance: house occupied by an heir and Leaving a family joint ownership in France and the glossary entries indivision, décote pour occupation and licitation complement this article. On the same theme: Occupation indemnity: until partition or return of the property and Premises sold to a family SCI: the tenant keeps first refusal. The decision is available on Légifrance.
What next
A let family house, heirs who want to sell, and a price to put in the notice?
I establish the value of the property vacant and let so that the price offered to the tenant is a genuine market price, agreed by all the co-owners before the notice is served.
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).
