An owner lets vineyards to a tenant farmer, without the buildings. She gives one of the leased plots to her daughter, then both promise to sell everything to the same buyer: the mother’s country house (bastide), pool and vines for 4,290,000 €, the daughter’s vine plot for 300,000 €. The notary notifies the tenant of the intention to sell the whole, stating that the two properties cannot be sold separately. The tenant does not pre-empt and only asks that his lease continue; two years later he attacks the promise and the sales. The Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal rules against him: vines and house, enclosed by the same low wall, form an indivisible whole that could be notified at a global price. On 16 April 2026 the Cour de cassation (the French supreme court for civil matters) quashed that ruling in a reported decision: the tenant farmer pre-empts only the leased property, unless the estate sold is indivisible, and “only property belonging to the same owner can constitute an indivisible whole”. The apportionment of the price, which the sellers thought they had avoided, becomes the central question again.
The facts
Mrs C. let to Mr P., under a farm lease (bail rural), three plots of vines, excluding the dwelling and farm buildings standing on them. One of those plots was divided in two; Mrs C. gave her daughter, Mrs R., the part planted with vines, the other part carrying the house, the pool and the adjoining land.
By notarial deed of 20 October 2020, mother and daughter grant Mr K. a unilateral promise of sale covering, on the one hand, Mrs C.’s plots, described as property 1, at a price of 4,290,000 €, and on the other, Mrs R.’s plot, described as property 2, at 300,000 €. On 17 November 2020 the notary notifies the tenant of the intention to sell all the plots, telling him that the two properties cannot be sold separately, as the promise states. On 10 December the company LBSA, substituted for the beneficiary, exercises the option and pays the price to the notary. On 14 December the tenant says he does not object to the sale of Mrs C.’s plots and wishes his lease to continue. On 19 March 2021 Mrs C. sells property 1 to the company; Mrs R. refuses to complete for property 2 and the company sues her for a completed sale. On 8 August 2022 the tenant applies to the rural leases court (tribunal paritaire des baux ruraux) for annulment of the promise and the sales.
The Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal, on 12 December 2024, dismisses him: an owner may sell in a single transaction an economically indivisible whole made up of the leased farm and property that is not leased; the whole plot, vines and house, is enclosed by a low wall with shared internal tracks; a single notification at a global price was therefore valid, and the tenant waived his pre-emption.
The decision
The third civil chamber quashed the judgment (Cass. 3e civ., 16 April 2026, no. 25-11.587, reported), under articles L. 412-1, L. 412-4 and L. 412-8 of the Rural and Maritime Fishing Code. An owner who sells rural property “may proceed with that sale only by taking account of a right of pre-emption in favour of the tenant farmer in place”; the notary’s notification “constitutes an offer of sale at the price and on the terms it contains”; the right of pre-emption “is exercised notwithstanding any clause to the contrary”.
The rule is stated in two sentences: “Where it wishes to sell an estate comprising leased plots and unleased plots, the landlord must allow the farmer to exercise his right of pre-emption over the leased property alone, unless it proves that the estate sold is indivisible, which entitles it to offer the single sale of the leased farm and of property not covered by the farm lease. Only property belonging to the same owner can constitute an indivisible whole.”
By holding the whole indivisible “while finding that the property sold by a single deed belonged to different owners”, the Court of Appeal failed to draw the legal consequences of its own findings. Full quashing, remittal to the Montpellier Court of Appeal, the buyer and his company bearing costs and 3,000 € under article 700.
What this changes for valuation
The principle: pre-empt the leased land, at its price. The tenant farmer has rights only over what he leases. When the landlord sells more broadly, the house, buildings, unleased plots, the notification must allow him to buy the leased land alone, which requires a price specific to that land. The exception of the indivisible whole allows a single offer at a global price, but it must be proved, it is construed strictly, and it does not cross the boundary of ownership: two sellers, two offers, even if the gift to the daughter is recent and the wall encloses everything.
Apportion, and document the apportionment. A valuer instructed to prepare a notification, or to challenge one, establishes two values. The value of the leased plots, by reference to sales of comparable land and vines in the appellation and the commune, to the agricultural land values published each year, and to the state of the plantings; the report states whether the value takes the current lease into account, as it does for a third-party buyer, or assumes vacant possession, as it does if the tenant buys. The value of the unleased property, a country house with pool and pleasure grounds, which belongs to the prestige residential market and compares with other houses, not with hectares. The sum of the two comes close to the global price of the promise; the gap, if any, shows what share of the price was placed on the vines.
The tenant’s remedy on price. If the price notified for the leased property seems excessive, the tenant may apply to the rural leases court, “which fixes, after inquiry and expert appraisal, the market value of the property and the terms of the sale” (article L. 412-7 of the Rural and Maritime Fishing Code); the owner then keeps the option of withdrawing from the sale. An apportionment that loads the vines to deter the tenant while lightening the house does not survive an adversarial appraisal carried out with references from the wine-land market.
What is an indivisible whole? The indivisibility the Court accepts is economic: vines without a winery or equipment, an estate whose farm buildings and the winegrower’s dwelling are intertwined, a single access. A low wall and shared tracks do not make that demonstration, and the Court did not have to rule on the point. The valuation report describes the functional links between plots and buildings, so that the judge decides on facts rather than on a fence.
Title to each plot. A gift-partition, a cadastral division, a family property company: ownership of each plot is read in the titles and the land registry before any notification. A valuer preparing a sale checks it and states it in the report, because the apportionment of the price follows the apportionment of ownership.
What the valuer takes from it
- The tenant farmer pre-empts only the leased property, unless the estate sold is proved indivisible; property of different owners never forms an indivisible whole.
- A notification covering leased land and unleased property requires a price specific to the leased land, established with market references.
- A tenant who finds the price excessive applies to the rural leases court, which fixes market value after an appraisal.
- Indivisibility is shown by functional links between plots and buildings, not by a fence.
- Ownership of each plot is checked in the titles before the price is apportioned.
Further reading
The Compulsory purchase and pre-emption page describes the assignment, its timescale and its fee. The glossary entries droit de préemption, valeur vénale and décote pour occupation complement this article. On the same theme: SAFER pre-emption: the fifteen-day notice and the exact address and Equestrian centre farm rent: the global clause is unlawful. The decision is available on Légifrance.
What next
Leased land sold together with the house, and a price to split?
I establish the value of the leased plots and of the unleased property, check whether the whole is really indivisible, and give the notary, the tenant or the rural court a breakdown of the price that holds.
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).
