Producing a valuation in a French court: which format to choose?

Your client disputes a value: the one adopted by the notaire (French civil-law notary) in a draft partition, the one in an opposing report, the one in a tax reassessment notice. You need a valuation to produce before the court. Three formats exist, and they do not carry the same weight before a French judge. Choosing the wrong one wastes time and money. This guide describes each format, what the Cour de cassation (the French supreme court for civil and commercial matters) makes of it, and how to choose according to the stage of the case.

What happens in practice

The Charte de l’expertise en évaluation immobilière (the French property valuation charter) distinguishes three formats of instruction (6th edition, November 2025, Title I, § 1.1).

The private single-party valuation. One party instructs me alone. I visit the property, draw up the report and deliver it to the client. The other side is not informed. It is the fastest format, suited to preparing a writ of summons, a negotiation or a reply to the tax authority.

The joint private valuation. Two parties, most often through their lawyers, choose the expert together and sign a common instruction. Both are invited to the inspection, receive the same documents and may submit observations. The report answers both and records the points of disagreement that remain. The fee is shared as set out in the engagement letter, usually in equal halves.

The court-ordered expert appraisal (expertise judiciaire). The judge appoints the expert (article 232 of the French Code of Civil Procedure), defines the mission and the time limit (article 265), and designates the party who must pay the advance on fees into court (consignation, article 269). The expert convenes the parties, takes their written observations (dires) into account (article 276) and files the report with the court registry (article 282). The fee is set by the judge (article 284). The appraisal can be ordered before any trial where there is a legitimate reason to preserve or establish evidence (article 145), or during the proceedings.

In a dispute over value, the usual order is as follows: a single-party report to fix the position, a proposal for a joint valuation to the other side, and only if that is refused, an application for a court-ordered appraisal. Many cases stop at the second step.

What French law says

The adversarial principle. The judge must in all circumstances ensure that the adversarial principle is respected, and respect it himself (article 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure). A valuation commissioned by one party outside any court framework does not give the opponent the safeguards of an appraisal ordered by the judge: impartiality of the expert (article 237), consideration of the parties’ observations (article 276).

The 2012 rule. The judge cannot base a decision exclusively on an expert report commissioned by one of the parties (Cass. ch. mixte, 28 September 2012, appeal no. 11-18.710). The report remains admissible, but it must be corroborated by other evidence.

The 2025 clarification. The rule applies even to a private valuation described as “adversarial”, that is one carried out in the presence of the other party at the initiative of only one. But it gives way when the findings relate to a fact that is established and not disputed (Cass. 1re civ., 15 October 2025, appeal no. 24-15.281, reported decision). I commented on this ruling in Private valuation reports: what a French judge can do with them.

The 2026 exception. Where the valuation was carried out under the contract concluded between the parties, by an expert chosen by mutual agreement, the judge may rely on it and assesses its scope in the exercise of its discretion (Cass. 3e civ., 8 January 2026, appeal no. 23-22.803, reported decision).

The judge remains free. Even in a court-ordered appraisal, the judge is not bound by the expert’s findings or conclusions (article 246). The expert gives an opinion on questions of fact; he gives no assessment of a legal nature (article 238).

What a valuation report changes

Whatever the format, the report must allow the reader to check the reasoning: comparables identified one by one with their source, adjustments explained, methods cross-checked where the property lends itself to it, assumptions in writing, value as a range and then as a single figure (Charte, Title II, chapter 10; EVS 2025, EVS 5). A single-party report built in this way is easier to corroborate: the deeds of sale cited in the appendices are themselves evidence.

The joint format adds what the Cour de cassation expects: both parties were invited, produced their documents and were able to discuss each comparable. The report answers point by point. When the parties chose the expert together and defined the mission in writing, the situation comes close to the one approved on 8 January 2026.

What the report does not do: it does not decide the legal question. The valuation date in a partition, the applicable basis of value, the classification of a plot of land are assumptions set by the mission. If they are disputed, I value each assumption separately, so that the judge has the value corresponding to the one that will be adopted.

A worked example

An estate opened in QUIMPER. Two heirs, one house. One wishes to be allotted the house by preferential allotment. He produces a single-party report concluding at €320,000. The other produces two estate agents’ opinions, at €370,000 and €390,000. On these bases, the equalising payment (soulte) ranges from €160,000 to €195,000, a difference of €35,000.

The judge cannot adopt the single-party report alone, since it is disputed. Nor can the judge adopt agents’ opinions given without an inspection or a method. The likely outcome is a court-ordered appraisal, with an advance on fees paid by the applicant and several months of delay.

The two lawyers agree on a joint valuation. Written mission, joint inspection, documents exchanged. The report concludes at €352,000 as a single figure, within a range of €340,000 to €365,000, with eight identified sales. Cost: 18 hours, that is €1,170, shared in equal halves, €585 each, travel not included. The equalising payment is set at €176,000 in the deed of partition, without a court-ordered appraisal.

Common mistakes

• Producing a desktop opinion of value without an inspection and believing it to be a valuation report. The desktop opinion has its place for a first approach, but it lists the missing documents and does not claim the rigour of a full valuation (Charte, Title II, § 8.6).
• Inviting the other side to an inspection organised by a single client and presenting the report as adversarial. Since the ruling of 15 October 2025, this presentation does not change the weight of the report.
• Asking for a report “at the desired value”. A report whose comparables are selected to reach a figure falls apart under critical review, and it puts the credibility of the person producing it at stake.
• Waiting for the court appointment before seeking assistance. The party’s technical adviser prepares the documents, the meeting and the written observations; he is more useful before the first meeting than after the preliminary report (pré-rapport).
• Entrusting the joint mission to an expert who has already advised one of the parties. A joint mission requires an expert with no prior connection to the case.

What to gather

• The title deed and, where they exist, the co-ownership regulations or the descriptive statement of division.
• The relevant procedural documents: writ of summons, submissions, judgment ordering the partition or the appraisal, draft liquidation statement.
• The valuations already produced, whatever their origin, with their appendices.
• Current leases, surveys and certificates, plans, the property tax notice, quotes for works.
• The valuation date requested and the expected basis of value, as they result from the mission or the decision.
• For a joint mission, the contact details of the opposing lawyer and the agreement in principle on sharing the fee.

Timeframe and fee

A private valuation, single-party or joint, is delivered about three weeks after the inspection. It represents at least 15 hours of work, that is €975 at the rate of €65 per hour, travel not included, charged at €65 per hour or part hour from PONT-L’ABBÉ. The presence of both parties at the inspection and the exchanges that follow are included in a joint mission; an additional meeting or hearing is charged on time spent. Litigation support in front of a court-appointed expert is charged on time spent; the critical review of an opposing report is from €975. A 50 % deposit is requested on signature of the valuation contract. VAT not applicable, article 293 B of the French General Tax Code.

On court appointment, the fee is set by the judge (article 284 of the Code of Civil Procedure), after payment of an advance into court (article 269). The formats and their fees are detailed on the Court expert, joint valuation and litigation support page and on the Fees page.