A farm forms part of an estate. The land is let under a farm lease (bail rural) to a farming company in which the deceased’s daughter and her husband hold almost all the shares and are co-managers. The daughter applies for preferential allocation (attribution préférentielle, the right of an heir to be allocated an asset against an equalising payment). The Paris Court of Appeal decides that the land will be valued as vacant: having become owner and landlord of the company she controls, the allottee holds the fate of the lease and risks neither assignment nor repossession. On 10 December 2025 the Cour de cassation (the French supreme court for civil matters) quashed that ruling in a reported decision and decided the point itself: the allocation does not unite the capacities of owner and tenant in the same person, the company remains the tenant, and the land “shall therefore be valued as let if the lease is still in force at the date of divided enjoyment”. The difference between the two values is the other heirs’ equalising payment.
The facts
The deceased dies on 22 March 2015, leaving her daughter and two grandchildren representing their late father. By notarial deed of 9 February 2012 she had let the farm’s assets under a farm lease to a farming company. The daughter and her husband hold 15,506 and 76 shares of that company respectively, and are its co-managers.
In the partition the daughter obtains preferential allocation of the farm assets. The Paris Court of Appeal, on 25 January 2023, rules that they will be valued as vacant: through the allocation she becomes owner and therefore landlord of the land let to the company she runs and controls, she holds the fate of the lease, and is protected against both an assignment of the lease and a repossession.
The decision
The first civil chamber quashed the judgment (Cass. 1re civ., 10 December 2025, no. 23-13.978, reported), under articles 832-4, paragraph 1, and 829 of the Civil Code: “assets subject to preferential allocation are valued at the date of divided enjoyment, taking into account, where relevant, the charges encumbering them”.
The rule: “where a farm is the subject, in a partition, of a preferential allocation to a co-heir who is a member of the company holding a farm lease over that farm, that allocation not uniting in the allottee, even a majority member, the capacities of owner and tenant, and the company consequently remaining the holder of the farm lease, the farm cannot be valued as free of any occupation”. Ruling on the merits, the Court holds that the assets “shall be valued as let if the lease is still in force at the date of divided enjoyment”.
What this changes for valuation
The lease is a charge, even when the tenant is “oneself”. Land let under a farm lease is worth less than vacant land, because the buyer takes on a sitting tenant, a regulated rent, a right to renewal and a right of pre-emption; the discount is commonly in the region of 20 to 30 %, more on long leases. The Court of Appeal had reasoned as an economist: the allottee controls the tenant company, so the lease does not hinder her. The Cour de cassation reasons as a lawyer: the company has a separate legal personality, it remains the tenant, and the charge exists. The same reasoning led the Court, in March 2026, to deny a family property company the exemption reserved for the landlord’s descendants, as explained in the article on the tenant’s right of first refusal.
What it does to the equalising payment. The allottee pays the other heirs an equalising payment computed on the value of the assets allocated. At let value, that payment is reduced by the discount; on a farm of several hundred hectares the gap runs to hundreds of thousands of euros. The grandchildren, here, lose that difference, even though their aunt and her husband, through their company, enjoy the farm as if they owned it. That is the consequence of a rule of law, and the valuer applies it; what the valuer can do is document the discount precisely, rather than apply a flat rate.
Justifying the discount. The let value is justified by the lease itself: remaining term, rent compared with the prefectoral minimum and maximum, repossession clauses, quality of the tenant, age of the farmer and prospects of renewal. When the tenant is a company controlled by the allottee, these elements take on a particular colour: the rent may be low, the lease long, repossession unlikely. The valuer describes this, and leaves it to the judge, or the parties, to draw the consequences in the discussion of the equalising payment, without departing from the rule of let value.
The Court’s reservation: the lease at the date of divided enjoyment. The ruling says “if the lease is still in force at the date of divided enjoyment”. If the company gives up the lease before that date, or if it is terminated, the land becomes vacant again and is valued as such. The valuation report, drawn up before divided enjoyment, therefore presents both values, vacant and let, and states which applies according to the state of the lease at the retained date.
The date of divided enjoyment. Allocated assets are valued at that date, in principle that of the partition, and not at the death or at the application for allocation. Between 2015 and the partition, the land market and the lease may have changed; the valuer values at the date set by the court, with the references of that date. The article on the equalising payment due at partition deals with the payment that follows.
What the valuer takes from it
- Assets allocated preferentially are valued at the date of divided enjoyment, charges included; a farm lease is one of them.
- Allocation to a member of the tenant company does not extinguish the lease: the land is valued as let.
- The discount is justified by the lease itself, term, rent, clauses, rather than by a flat rate.
- If the lease ends before divided enjoyment, vacant value applies; the report presents both.
- The difference between vacant and let value is exactly what the other heirs lose or gain on the equalising payment.
Further reading
The Market value page describes the assignment, its timescale and its fee. The guide Standard court mission: market value for a partition and the glossary entries attribution préférentielle, soulte and décote pour occupation complement this article. On the same theme: Preferential allocation: the equalising payment is due at partition and Swapping the use of farm plots does not create a farm lease. The decision is available on Légifrance.
What next
A farm to allocate in an estate, let to the company of one of the heirs?
I establish the value of the land and buildings let and vacant, at the date of divided enjoyment, with the discount justified by the lease, to fix the equalising payment owed to the other heirs.
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).
