Challenging the Management or a Decision of the Co-ownership Property Manager: Procedure and Time Limits

A co-owner reads the minutes and discovers that the general meeting voted for facade renovation works by a majority that seems to him irregular. Another notes that the property manager (syndic) never carried out the roof repairs voted two years earlier, leaving water infiltration to worsen. A third receives service charge demands that he considers unjustified and can no longer obtain a single accounting document. These three situations stem from the same problem, a dispute with the co-ownership (copropriété) property manager, but they are not governed by the same rules or the same time limits. This guide distinguishes the two main routes of challenge, the one directed at a general meeting decision (subject to the strict two-month time limit) and the one directed at the property manager's deficient management, and sets out for each the amicable and judicial remedies available to the co-owner.

Understanding the nature of the dispute: general meeting decision or property manager's management

Before taking any step, it is necessary to identify what is actually being challenged, since the procedure and above all the time limit depend entirely on it.

A general meeting decision is a collective act, adopted by a vote of the co-owners in meeting. The property manager merely prepares, convenes and implements. Challenging a resolution that has been voted (authorisation of works, approval of the accounts, appointment of the property manager, allocation of an expense) is therefore a challenge to the decision itself, governed by Article 42 of Law No. 65-557 of 10 July 1965 laying down the status of co-ownership of built property.

A management failure, by contrast, is an act (or a failure to act) of the property manager itself in the performance of its mandate: failure to maintain the building, failure to recover unpaid service charges, opaque accounting, refusal to provide documents, failure to take out the compulsory insurance. These duties are defined in Article 18 of the 1965 Law. Here, it is not a collective decision that is challenged; it is the performance of the property management contract that is called into question, which opens other remedies and is not confined to the two-month time limit.

The same case may combine both. A dispute with the co-ownership property manager often begins with contested management, which then leads to a contentious general meeting. Hence the importance of characterising each complaint precisely.

Challenging a general meeting decision: the two-month time limit

This is the strictest rule of co-ownership law, and the one that catches out the most co-owners.

"Actions seeking to challenge the decisions of general meetings must, on pain of forfeiture, be brought by the opposing or defaulting co-owners within two months of the notification of those decisions" (Article 42, paragraph 2, of the Law of 10 July 1965).

Three words deserve attention: on pain of forfeiture. Once the time limit has expired, the action is inadmissible, without the court having to examine the merits. The decision, even if irregular, becomes final and binding on all.

Who may act: opposing and defaulting co-owners

The right to challenge a general meeting decision in a co-ownership does not belong to everyone. Only the following may act:

• the opposing co-owner, that is to say the one who voted against the resolution (a vote in favour or an abstention closes the door to a challenge of that resolution);
• the defaulting co-owner, that is to say the one who was absent and not represented at the meeting.

In practice, a co-owner who voted "for" the approval of the accounts will not subsequently be able to challenge that same resolution. It is therefore decisive to have one's vote against recorded in the minutes, resolution by resolution. The minutes must moreover name the opposing co-owners and state how they voted, pursuant to Article 17 of Decree No. 67-223 of 17 March 1967.

Take an example. At a meeting, a co-owner opposes the resolution authorising a maintenance contract that he considers overpriced, but approves the other items. He will only be able to bring the matter before the court in respect of the resolution he opposed, and provided that his opposition is duly recorded in the minutes.

The starting point of the time limit: notification of the minutes

The two-month time limit does not run from the day of the meeting, but from the notification of the minutes by the property manager. The property manager must notify the minutes to the opposing and defaulting co-owners within one month of the meeting being held (Article 42 of the Decree of 17 March 1967).

Notification is made by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt or, if the co-owner has consented, electronically (electronic registered mail). The starting point of the time limit is the date on which the registered letter is first presented, not the date on which the co-owner actually collects it. A letter presented on the 15th of the month starts the time limit running from that day, even if the person concerned only collects it two weeks later. Recent developments in electronic notifications in co-ownership are presented in our article on the Decree of 22 December 2025.

This mechanism requires immediate vigilance. As soon as the minutes are received, a dissatisfied co-owner should note the date of presentation and promptly consult a lawyer, as two months pass quickly when documents must be gathered, the regularity of the vote analysed and a writ of summons drafted.

Admissible grounds for challenge

A general meeting decision may be challenged on grounds of form or substance. The irregularities most frequently raised relate to:

• an irregular notice of meeting: notice period not complied with (at least twenty-one days before the meeting, unless otherwise provided), incomplete agenda, missing mandatory enclosures (quotes, competing contracts);
• a majority rule not complied with: for example, a resolution requiring the Article 25 majority adopted by the simple majority of Article 24;
• a resolution not included on the agenda: the meeting may validly vote only on the items on the agenda;
• an infringement of a co-owner's rights: abusive decision by the majority, extravagant expenditure, discrimination in the allocation of charges.

A challenge is not a second chance to reopen the debate. The court reviews the legality of the decision, not its expediency. Challenging a decision merely because one disagrees with a choice that was regularly voted has little chance of success.

Challenging the property manager's deficient management

Where the complaint concerns not a collective decision but the property manager's conduct, the two-month time limit no longer applies and the rules on the liability of an agent take over.

The most common failures

The property manager is the agent of the owners' association (syndicat des copropriétaires). In that capacity, Article 18 of the 1965 Law requires it in particular to ensure that general meeting decisions are implemented, to administer the building, to see to its maintenance and to keep separate accounts. The failures regularly relied upon are:

• failure to carry out works that have been voted, allowing a defect to worsen;
• failure to recover unpaid service charges, which weighs on the association's cash position;
• opaque accounting and refusal to provide documents (invoices, bank statements, contracts);
• failure to take out or renew the building insurance;
• failure to comply with the obligation to make documents available via a secure extranet.

A telling example: in a small co-ownership, roof leaks are reported to the property manager over several months. Despite written reminders, no survey or emergency repair is commissioned, and a top-floor flat suffers damage. The aggrieved co-owner may seek to hold the property manager liable for breach of its obligation to see to the maintenance of the building and to take the urgent protective measures that Article 18 allows it to order without waiting for a general meeting.

The central role of the owners' council

The owners' council (conseil syndical), provided for in Article 21 of the 1965 Law, supervises and assists the property manager. It gives its opinion on any matter concerning the association, oversees the management and has the right to obtain any document. Before bringing an individual action, a co-owner has every interest in alerting the owners' council in writing: the council can call the property manager to account, demand explanations and, where appropriate, request that items be placed on the agenda of the next meeting. The appointment of the members of the owners' council and the extent of their supervisory duties are discussed separately in our article on the election and role of the owners' council.

Since the ELAN Law (Law No. 2018-1021 of 23 November 2018), the owners' council may, by a vote of the general meeting, be delegated the power to take certain decisions, which strengthens its role as a counterweight to a passive property manager.

Amicable remedies: to be preferred before litigation

Litigation is neither the first nor the only response. In a dispute with the co-ownership property manager, the amicable route is often quicker, less costly and sometimes more effective.

Writing to the property manager and formalising requests

The first step is to write to the property manager by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt, setting out the complaint precisely and requesting a reply within a reasonable time. A written record is essential: it is the starting point for demonstrating a failure if litigation becomes unavoidable. A mere telephone conversation leaves no usable evidence.

The formal notice

If the property manager remains silent or refuses to act, a formal notice (mise en demeure), also sent by registered letter, marks an escalation. It recalls the obligation that has been disregarded, cites the applicable provision (Article 18 of the 1965 Law for maintenance, for example) and sets a deadline for compliance. It also prepares the ground for court proceedings by establishing that the property manager was given the opportunity to remedy the situation and failed to do so.

Having an item placed on the agenda

Any co-owner may notify the property manager, at any time, of the items he wishes to have placed on the agenda of the next meeting (Article 10 of the Decree of 17 March 1967). This is the lever for bringing a dispute before the co-owners as a body: challenge to a contract, request for an audit of the management, or even placing the dismissal of the property manager on the agenda. The request must be made early enough to be included in the notice of meeting.

Judicial remedies

Where the amicable route fails, or where the two-month time limit under Article 42 requires prompt action, the judicial route is available.

The competent court and representation by a lawyer

Co-ownership disputes fall within the jurisdiction of the judicial court (tribunal judiciaire) for the place where the building is located. Since the civil procedure reform that came into force in 2020, representation by a lawyer is in principle mandatory before the judicial court for this type of litigation, in particular where the claim exceeds the exemption threshold or is subject to the written procedure. Given the technical nature of co-ownership law and the foreclosure time limits, the assistance of a lawyer is not a formality but a procedural safeguard.

Challenging a general meeting decision: acting within two months

To challenge a general meeting decision in a co-ownership, the action takes the form of a writ of summons served on the owners' association, represented by its property manager, before the expiry of the two-month time limit. Note that the writ must actually be served within that time limit, not merely prepared. This is why it is essential to contact a lawyer very quickly once the minutes have been notified.

Summary proceedings for urgent situations

Where a situation calls for immediate action (damage that is getting worse, a manifestly irregular decision about to be implemented, the need to obtain an expert report), the judge hearing summary proceedings (référé) may be seised. The judge may order protective measures, appoint a court-appointed expert or suspend the implementation of a decision in the event of a manifestly unlawful disturbance. Summary proceedings do not decide the merits, but they make it possible to freeze a situation until it is tried.

The liability action against the property manager

A management failure is sanctioned by a liability action seeking compensation for the loss caused to the association or to a co-owner. This action is time-barred after five years, the ordinary limitation period applicable to personal actions in co-ownership matters since the ELAN Law reduced the former ten-year period (Article 42, paragraph 1, of the 1965 Law). It is necessary to prove a fault (breach of a statutory or contractual obligation), a loss and a causal link between the two.

Dismissing or replacing the property manager

Where the relationship is permanently compromised, the solution lies in changing the property manager. Several mechanisms coexist.

Dismissal by the general meeting

Both the appointment and the dismissal of the property manager are decided by the general meeting, by the Article 25 majority of the 1965 Law (majority of the votes of all co-owners). The question of dismissal must be on the agenda. A property manager may be dismissed before the end of its mandate, but dismissal without legitimate grounds may, depending on the circumstances, expose the association to having to compensate the property manager. It is therefore prudent to document the failures that justify the termination. On the steps and time limits for changing property manager, and on the termination letter, see our guide to changing property manager.

Since the ELAN Law, the question of the property manager's dismissal may, subject to conditions, be placed on the agenda and discussed within a defined framework, which makes things easier for dissatisfied co-owners.

Competitive tendering of contracts

The ALUR Law (Law No. 2014-366 of 24 March 2014) introduced the obligation for the owners' council to put several draft property management contracts out to competition before the mandate is renewed, the general meeting being able to waive this by a prior vote. This competitive tendering is a practical tool for co-owners: it allows fees and services to be compared and a change of property manager to be prepared on an objective basis.

The provisional administrator and the ad hoc agent

In co-ownerships in serious difficulty, in particular financial difficulty, Article 29-1 of the 1965 Law allows the court to appoint a provisional administrator (administrateur provisoire), who replaces the management bodies. This measure is exceptional and requires that the financial balance of the association be seriously compromised or that the association be unable to ensure the preservation of the building. It is not the answer to a mere disagreement over management, but to a situation of deadlock or insolvency of the co-ownership.

Conclusion: act quickly and document thoroughly

In a dispute with the co-ownership property manager, the decisive reflex is to characterise the nature of the complaint immediately. If the aim is to challenge a general meeting decision, the two-month countdown under Article 42 starts on notification of the minutes, and a single day's delay makes the action inadmissible, however serious the irregularity. If the issue is deficient management, time is less pressing for the co-owner, but the case rests entirely on the written record built up: reminders, formal notices, the property manager's replies or proof of its silence.

The position taken in this guide is clear: never let the two-month time limit slip through overconfidence in an amicable settlement, and pursue the amicable route alongside litigation rather than instead of it when foreclosure looms. In practice, as soon as you receive minutes that may be challenged, note the date on which the registered letter was first presented, gather the notice of meeting, the votes and the annexed documents, and have the regularity of the resolution analysed by a lawyer before the time limit expires. For Paris co-ownership disputes, where the density of buildings and the frequency of works multiply points of friction, this responsiveness is all the more decisive.

Frequently asked questions

What is the time limit for challenging a co-ownership general meeting decision? The time limit is two months on pain of forfeiture, pursuant to Article 42, paragraph 2, of the Law of 10 July 1965. It runs from the notification of the minutes by the property manager, made by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt, and more precisely from the date on which that letter is first presented. Once this time limit has expired, the action is inadmissible and the decision becomes final.

Who may challenge a co-ownership general meeting decision? Only opposing co-owners (those who voted against the resolution) and defaulting co-owners (absent and not represented) may act. A co-owner who voted in favour or abstained cannot challenge the resolution concerned. It is therefore essential to have one's vote against recorded in the minutes, resolution by resolution.

Can the property manager's management be challenged outside a general meeting? Yes. A challenge to a management failure (failure to maintain, opaque accounting, failure to carry out works that have been voted) is not subject to the two-month time limit but falls under the liability action against the property manager, agent of the association under Article 18 of the 1965 Law. This action is time-barred after five years and requires proof of a fault, a loss and a causal link.

How can a co-ownership property manager be dismissed? Dismissal is decided by the general meeting, by the Article 25 majority of the 1965 Law, and the question must be placed on the agenda. A co-owner may ask the property manager to include it before the notice of meeting is sent. Dismissal without legitimate grounds may, however, expose the association to compensating the property manager, hence the importance of documenting the failures precisely.

Is a lawyer mandatory to challenge the property manager? Before the judicial court, which has jurisdiction over co-ownership disputes at the place where the building is located, representation by a lawyer is in principle mandatory for this type of litigation since the 2020 civil procedure reform. Beyond the obligation, the technical nature of co-ownership law and the short two-month foreclosure period make the assistance of a lawyer strongly advisable.

What should be done if the property manager refuses to provide the accounting documents? A written request should first be sent by registered letter, followed by a formal notice recalling the property manager's duty of transparency and the owners' council's right of supervision under Article 21 of the 1965 Law. If the refusal persists, the court, including in summary proceedings, may be asked to order disclosure of the documents subject to a daily penalty (astreinte).

Can summary proceedings suspend a general meeting decision? The judge hearing summary proceedings may order protective measures or bring a manifestly unlawful disturbance to an end, which may lead to the suspension of the implementation of a manifestly irregular decision. The judge does not decide the merits of the dispute, but can freeze the situation urgently, for example before contested works begin. This route complements, but does not replace, the action on the merits challenging the decision.