The seller of a property sold for less than five twelfths of its value can obtain rescission of the sale for lésion (lesion, a gross undervalue in a property sale). The judgment that grants it does not close the case: the buyer still has to choose between returning the property and keeping it by paying a price supplement. How long can the buyer wait? The reported decision of the Third Civil Chamber of the Cour de cassation (French supreme court for civil and commercial matters) of 5 January 2022 answers: within the time set by the judgment or, failing that, within a reasonable time. Here, an option exercised four years after the judgment was not held to be out of time.
The facts
On 26 December 2008, a couple sold a house to an SCI (société civile immobilière, a French property-holding company) for €120,000, with an occupation agreement granted to the sellers against a monthly indemnity.
A final judgment of 8 November 2012, corrected on 21 March 2013 and served on 7 June 2013, ordered rescission of the sale for lesion. It left the SCI the choice of returning the property and recovering the price paid, or keeping it by providing a price supplement, less one tenth of the total price. It set no time limit for that choice.
The SCI was placed in receivership (redressement judiciaire) on 29 July 2015, converted into judicial liquidation on 1 February 2017. On 24 March 2016, to preserve their rights, the sellers lodged a proof of claim, which was disputed; the liquidator announced on 8 November 2016 that it intended to keep the property and pay the price supplement. The sellers sued the SCI and its liquidator to have that option held inadmissible and unfounded.
On 14 May 2020 the Nîmes Court of Appeal held that the option had been validly exercised and, before ruling on the merits, ordered an appraisal of the property’s rental value. The sellers appealed: in their view, the buyer must exercise the option within a reasonable time or lose the right, and the SCI had let more than four years pass after the rescission.
The decision
The Cour de cassation dismissed the appeal (Cass. 3e civ., 5 January 2022, appeal no. 20-18.918, reported). It stated the rule under article 1681 of the French Civil Code: “The exercise of the option provided for in article 1681 of the Civil Code belongs to the buyer, who alone has the initiative and who must exercise it within the time set by the decision that found lesion or, failing that, within a reasonable time.”
It noted the Court of Appeal’s finding that the SCI had held the option allowing it “either to let the rescission take effect, or to stop its effects by paying a price supplement”, since a judgment that set no time limit for that option. It then approved the lower court: “Having found, in the exercise of its sovereign power of assessment, that the expression by the buyer of its intention to keep the property was not late, it correctly inferred that the liquidator had validly exercised the option.”
The rule adopts the principle the sellers were arguing for: a judgment silent on the time limit does not open an unlimited option. But whether the option was exercised late is for the trial judges (juges du fond: first-instance court and Court of Appeal) to assess. The decision therefore sets no period: it does not make four years a reasonable time in general; it only holds that the Court of Appeal could find the option not late here.
On the second ground, the Court rejected the challenge to the rental value appraisal: in giving that assignment, the Court of Appeal, “which was not required to give specific reasons for its decision ordering an investigative measure and is not bound by the expert’s conclusions, did not rule on the principle of an occupation indemnity that would be owed by the sellers”.
What this changes for valuation
Two stages, two questions. Before the judgment, the task is to establish lesion: the market value of the property at the date of the sale, in its condition at the time (article 1675 of the Civil Code; Charte de l’expertise en évaluation immobilière, the French property valuation charter, 6th edition, November 2025, Title III, § 1.1), compared with the price through a report by three experts (article 1678). The plausibility filter that conditions that appraisal is the subject of a 2023 decision discussed separately; the article on cancelling a sale at a low price sets out the seven twelfths calculation. After the judgment comes the option.
The balance of the fair price is calculated. The balance (supplément du juste prix) starts from the fair price adopted in the rescission proceedings, less the price paid and one tenth of the total price (article 1681). For a property sold for €100,000 and valued at €260,000 at the date of sale, for instance, the supplement would be €260,000 − €100,000 − €26,000, that is €134,000. Under article 1682, a buyer who keeps the property owes interest on the supplement from the claim for rescission; one who returns it gives back the income (fruits) from that date.
The passage of time weighs on the choice. Between the judgment and the option, the market moves. The buyer compares the cost of keeping the property, supplement and interest, with its value when the decision is made and with what returning it would recover. A current value informs that decision. It is distinct from the retrospective value used to establish lesion: two valuation dates, two sets of references, which the report presents separately.
The seller benefits from a time limit set in the judgment. The Court refers first to the time set by the decision that finds lesion. Without one, the seller faces a wait that only the court will later characterise as reasonable or not: here, four years. The time limit for the action itself, two years from the sale (article 1676), is recalled in connection with selling a commercial building below its value.
Rental value remains an investigative measure. The sellers occupied the house under the occupation agreement granted at the sale, and disputed owing occupation indemnities to the SCI. The expert’s assignment on rental value does not decide the principle of an occupation indemnity (indemnité d’occupation). A report answering it quantifies a market rent over the relevant period (Charte, Title III, § 1.4) and leaves that question to the court.
What the valuer takes from it
- After rescission, the option belongs to the buyer alone: the seller does not choose in the buyer’s place.
- It is exercised within the time set by the judgment or, failing that, within a reasonable time assessed by the trial judges; four years was accepted here, without setting a rule.
- The supplement starts from the fair price, less the price paid and one tenth of the total price; interest on it runs from the claim for rescission (article 1682).
- The current value informs the buyer’s choice; the report keeps it apart from the value at the date of the sale, each with its own valuation date.
- An assignment on rental value does not prejudge the occupation indemnity: the report quantifies, the court rules on the principle.
Further reading
The Market value page describes the assignment and its fee. The guide Producing a valuation in a French court: which format to choose? and the glossary entries lesion, valuation date and market value complement this article. The proof stage is discussed in Rescission for lesion: a compulsory purchase award as evidence. On the same theme: Cancelling a property sale in France for a price far too low? and Undervaluation by the estate agent: the value gap must be proved. The decision is available on Légifrance.
What next
The sale was rescinded for lesion and the choice is still open?
I establish the current value of the property, with its valuation date and references, and set it against the supplement calculated on the fair price adopted in the rescission proceedings, interest included. The report gives your lawyer the material to compare the two branches of the option.
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).
