Joint ownership (indivision): works carried out without the other joint owners' consent

An heir has the roof of the family home, which has remained in joint ownership (indivision), redone without telling their brothers and sisters. A separated couple who still jointly own the flat find that one of them alone commissions costly renovation works. A joint owner (indivisaire) installs a new kitchen, renovates the façade, replaces the boiler, then claims reimbursement from the others, who never gave their consent. These situations arise constantly whenever a property belongs to several people without the shares being divided.

The central question is twofold: could a joint owner commission these works alone, and above all, can they obtain reimbursement from the others? The answer depends on a precise legal mechanism, that of the majority rules laid down by the French Civil Code, and on a separate compensation regime depending on the nature of the expenditure. This article sets out the dividing line between protective measures, acts subject to a two-thirds majority and acts requiring unanimity, and then explains under what conditions the joint owner who paid alone recovers their outlay.

Understanding joint ownership and the principle of joint decision-making

Joint ownership refers to the situation in which several persons together hold rights of the same nature over the same asset, without their shares being physically identified. Each joint owner holds an abstract share, expressed as a fraction (one third, one quarter, one half), and not a delimited physical space. This situation most often arises from an estate, a divorce, the dissolution of a civil partnership (pacte civil de solidarité) or a joint purchase without a company being formed.

The basic principle is collective management. No one may decide alone on the fate of an asset that also belongs to others. Before the reform introduced by Law No. 2006-728 of 23 June 2006 reforming successions and gratuitous transfers, unanimity was in practice the rule for any act of management, which paralysed entire joint ownerships as soon as a single joint owner refused. The legislature relaxed this system by introducing a two-thirds majority for acts of administration. The rules for managing jointly owned property and the rights of each joint owner are presented in general terms in our article on what the Civil Code provides on joint ownership.

Today, three regimes coexist, and the nature of the works envisaged determines which one applies:

• protective measures (actes conservatoires), which each joint owner may carry out alone
• acts of administration, subject to a majority of two thirds of the joint ownership rights
• acts of disposal, which require unanimous consent

The whole difficulty, in practice, lies in correctly characterising the works carried out. The same project may fall into one category or another depending on its scale, its urgency and its effect on the intended use of the property. It is this characterisation that governs both the validity of the decision and the right to reimbursement.

Protective measures: what a joint owner can do alone

Article 815-2 of the French Civil Code authorises each joint owner to act individually to preserve the common property.

Any joint owner may take the measures necessary for the preservation of the jointly owned property even if they are not urgent.

Two points deserve attention. First, the act must be aimed at preserving the property, that is, preventing its deterioration, its loss or a reduction in its value. Secondly, contrary to a widespread belief, urgency has not been required since the 2006 reform. A joint owner may therefore commission a necessary repair without waiting for imminent damage, provided that the measure genuinely serves to protect the jointly owned assets.

Practical examples of protective works

Typical protective measures are works that keep the property in good condition without transforming it:

• repairing a roof that lets water in and threatens the structure
• treating a roof frame attacked by wood-boring insects or dry rot (mérule)
• repairing a dangerous electrical installation
• replacing a broken-down boiler in a let dwelling, to avoid the loss of the lease
• works required by a dangerous building order (arrêté de péril) or an administrative formal notice

These works have one thing in common: without them, the property loses value or becomes unusable. The joint owner who commissions them acts in the interest of all, which justifies their being able to do so without obtaining the prior consent of the others.

Financing protective works

Article 815-2 specifies that the joint owner may use for this purpose the joint ownership funds held by a third party and, failing that, compel the other joint owners to contribute to the necessary expenditure. In other words, a joint owner who advances personal funds for a protective measure has a claim against the joint ownership. This point is decisive for reimbursement, which is subject to a more favourable regime than that for mere improvements, as we will see below.

Acts of administration: the two-thirds majority

Beyond mere preservation, the day-to-day management of the property falls within acts of administration. Article 815-3 of the French Civil Code entrusts these decisions to the joint owners holding at least two thirds of the joint ownership rights.

This majority is calculated on the shares, not on the number of persons. Three brothers inheriting in equal shares each hold one third: two of them are therefore needed to reach two thirds. On the other hand, a joint owner holding 70% of the rights alone may decide despite the opposition of the others, provided that the act is one of administration. This point often surprises minority joint owners, who wrongly believe they have a right of veto over everything.

What administration covers

The joint owners holding two thirds may in particular:

• carry out acts of administration relating to the jointly owned property
• give one or more of them, or a third party, a general mandate of administration
• sell jointly owned movable property to pay the debts and charges of the joint ownership
• conclude and renew residential or professional leases

As regards works, this category includes maintenance and improvement operations that do not change the intended use of the property: renovating a dilapidated bathroom, replacing windows and doors, redoing a heating installation to improve its efficiency, bringing a dwelling intended for letting up to standard. These works go beyond mere preservation, but do not transform the property to the point of constituting an act of disposal.

Mandatory information of minority joint owners

The two-thirds majority is not a blank cheque. Article 815-3 requires the majority joint owners to inform the others of the decisions taken. Failing such information, those decisions cannot be relied on against them. In practical terms, a joint owner who commissions works of administration on the strength of the majority must notify the minority joint owners, failing which they may be unable to claim their share of the cost from them. Joint decision-making remains the philosophy of the system, even where the law tolerates a non-unanimous decision.

Acts of disposal: unanimity remains the rule

Some works go well beyond maintenance or improvement: they transform the property, change its intended use or substantially alter its composition. These operations are acts of disposal, for which the unanimity of the joint owners remains required; a two-thirds majority is not sufficient. The division of the property into identified lots, which is one of these operations, is dealt with in our practical guide to converting joint ownership into co-ownership.

The following in principle require unanimity:

• the construction of an extension or a new building on the jointly owned land
• the conversion of commercial premises into dwellings, or vice versa
• the demolition of an existing structure
• the division of a building into several lots
• works of such a scale that they change the nature or intended use of the property

The boundary between an improvement subject to a two-thirds majority and a transformation requiring unanimity is not always clear. The court assesses the matter case by case, taking into account the scale of the works, their cost relative to the value of the property and their effect on its intended use. Redoing a kitchen is an act of administration; knocking down partition walls to convert a three-room flat into a studio intended for short-term holiday letting may tip over into disposal. In case of doubt, prudence dictates seeking everyone's agreement.

Works carried out without consent: what risks for the joint owner

The expression works in joint ownership without consent in fact covers very different situations depending on the category into which the works fall. The consequences range from almost automatic reimbursement to a total refusal to contribute, or even the liability of the person who acted alone.

If the works constituted a protective measure, the joint owner was legally entitled to commission them alone. They then have a claim against the joint ownership and will, in principle, be able to obtain a contribution from the others. The risk is low, provided that the necessary nature of the expenditure is demonstrated.

If the works were acts of administration but were decided without reaching the two-thirds majority, or without informing the minority joint owners, the decision cannot be relied on against them. The joint owner who paid will not be able to require them to contribute on the basis of management. They will have to rely instead on compensation under Article 815-13, with the limits specific to that regime.

If the works constituted an act of disposal carried out without unanimity, the situation is the most delicate. The joint owner has exceeded their powers. Not only do they risk not being reimbursed for the whole of their expenditure, but they may also incur liability if the works have caused loss to the others, for example by altering the character of the property or complicating its resale. The other joint owners may even, in some cases, demand that the property be restored to its previous condition.

One point is, however, reassuring for the joint owner acting in good faith: even without consent, French law does not systematically deprive them of all compensation. The mechanism of Article 815-13, examined below, often makes it possible to recover at least part of the expenditure, irrespective of whether the act was regular.

Reimbursement of the joint owner who paid alone

Article 815-13 of the French Civil Code organises compensation for a joint owner who has financed works on the common property. It is the central provision for anyone wishing to recover their outlay.

Where a joint owner has improved the condition of a jointly owned asset at their own expense, account must be taken of this in accordance with equity, having regard to the increase in the value of the asset at the time of the partition or disposal. Account must likewise be taken of the necessary expenses incurred from their personal funds for the preservation of the said assets, even if those expenses have not improved them.

This provision distinguishes two types of expenditure, subject to two very different reimbursement rationales. Understanding this distinction is essential to assess one's chances of recovery.

Preservation expenses: reimbursement of the amount actually incurred

Expenses necessary for the preservation of the property, those that prevent its deterioration, are reimbursed up to their amount, even if they have not increased the value of the property. Repairing a leaking roof, treating a rotten roof frame or bringing the property up to standard as required by an order fall into this category. The joint owner recovers what they spent, provided they substantiate the reality and the necessary nature of the works with invoices and quotes.

This regime is the most protective. It is easy to understand: a person who has prevented the loss of the common property has acted in the interest of all, and it would be unfair for them alone to bear a charge that has benefited everyone.

Improvement expenses: the remaining benefit rule

Improvement expenses follow a very different rationale, which is often misunderstood and a source of disappointment. Compensation is not calculated on the amount spent, but on the increase in value that the works have brought to the property, assessed on the date of the partition or sale.

In practical terms, the joint owner is compensated with the lower of two amounts: the expenditure actually incurred or the increase in value recorded. Practitioners refer to the « remaining benefit » (profit subsistant). A joint owner who has spent a large sum fitting out a conservatory or installing a high-end kitchen will only recover the value that those works actually add to the property at the time of the partition. If fashions have changed, if the equipment has depreciated or if the fit-out does not match market expectations, the increase in value may be much lower than the expenditure.

Take an illustration. A brother inherits a family home with his two sisters. He alone commissions costly renovation works, without their consent. Ten years later, at the time of sale, an expert values the increase in value brought by those works at an amount significantly lower than what he paid out, because of wear and tear and dated aesthetic choices. He will only be able to claim that increase in value, and not the whole of his invoice. Conversely, if the works had retained their value, he would have been compensated up to the amount of his expenditure.

Timing and proof of reimbursement

Reimbursement in principle takes place on the partition or sale of the property, not immediately after the works. The joint owner who paid records their claim in the joint ownership account (compte d'indivision), which is settled at the time of liquidation. They may request payment before the partition, but calculating the improvement requires knowing the value of the property on the date of liquidation or disposal, which frequently leads to waiting. The obligations of joint owners during the joint ownership and the conduct of the partition, whether amicable or judicial, are set out in our article on the partition of joint ownership and how it works.

Proof plays a decisive role. The joint owner must keep all supporting documents: quotes, invoices in their name, evidence of personal payment, photographs before and after the works, written exchanges with the other joint owners. In the event of a dispute, it is for the person claiming compensation to demonstrate the reality of the expenditure, its necessary or improving nature and the link with the increase in the value of the property. A court-ordered expert assessment is often ordered to quantify the remaining benefit.

How to secure works in joint ownership

Rather than being subject to the reimbursement mechanism, it is better to plan ahead. Several tools make it possible to commission works without being exposed to a refusal to contribute or to litigation.

The first precaution is to obtain written consent before any significant works. A simple email approving the quote by the majority joint owners, or even by all of them, is enough to establish consent and secure the allocation of the cost. This document prevents any later dispute over the principle and the amount of the works.

Where the joint ownership is long-term, the conclusion of a joint ownership agreement (convention d'indivision), provided for by Articles 1873-1 et seq. of the French Civil Code, organises the management of the property in advance. It may appoint a manager, set the rules for decision-making and financing of works, and avoid deadlock. Concluded in writing and, for immovable property, registered with the land registration service (service de la publicité foncière), it provides a stable framework.

In the event of deadlock, a joint owner who wishes to carry out necessary works despite the inaction or opposition of the others may apply to the court. Article 815-5 of the French Civil Code allows a joint owner to be authorised by the court to carry out alone an act for which the consent of another joint owner would be required, if the latter's refusal endangers the common interest. The court may also appoint an agent (mandataire) to administer the joint ownership where it is paralysed. These procedures avoid acting unlawfully and compromising reimbursement.

Conclusion

In joint ownership, commissioning works without the consent of the others is never neutral, but the sanction depends closely on the nature of the operation. Preservation works, which a joint owner may carry out alone under Article 815-2, give rise to reimbursement of the expenditure actually incurred. Works of administration require a two-thirds majority and information of the minority joint owners. Major transformations require unanimity, and a joint owner who disregards this risks recovering only a fraction of their outlay, or even incurring liability.

The most counter-intuitive point, and the one with the heaviest financial consequences, lies in the compensation regime for improvements: the joint owner is not reimbursed for what they spent, but for the remaining increase in value on the date of the partition. An ambitious renovation may thus yield only modest compensation. The message is clear: a written agreement before the works is better than a compensation dispute ten years later.

Before commissioning any works on jointly owned property, characterise the nature of the works precisely, obtain the written consent of at least the required majority, and keep all supporting documents. If the other joint owners block a necessary repair, do not pay alone in the hope of being reimbursed: obtain the court's authorisation on the basis of Article 815-5, the only route that secures both the completion of the works and their collective funding.

Frequently asked questions

Can a single joint owner redo a roof without the consent of the others?

Yes, if redoing the roof is a measure necessary for the preservation of the property, for example where the roof covering lets water in and threatens the structure. Article 815-2 of the French Civil Code authorises each joint owner to take protective measures alone, even without urgency. They may then claim reimbursement of the expenditure incurred from the other joint owners, provided they substantiate its necessary nature with quotes and invoices.

How is the two-thirds majority calculated in joint ownership?

The two-thirds majority is calculated on the joint ownership rights, that is, the shares, and not on the number of joint owners. Three heirs with equal shares each hold one third, so two of them together are needed to reach two thirds. A joint owner holding more than 66.66% of the rights alone may decide alone on acts of administration, despite the opposition of the minority joint owners, provided they inform them in accordance with Article 815-3.

Which works require the unanimity of the joint owners?

Unanimity is required for acts of disposal, that is, works that transform the property, change its intended use or substantially alter its composition. The construction of an extension, the demolition of a structure, the conversion of commercial premises into a dwelling or a renovation on such a scale that it changes the nature of the property require unanimity. A two-thirds majority is not sufficient for these operations, unlike acts of administration.

Does the joint owner who paid for the works recover the whole of their expenditure?

That depends on the nature of the works. For expenses necessary for preservation, they recover the amount actually incurred under Article 815-13. For improvement expenses, they are only compensated for the increase in value brought to the property, assessed on the date of the partition or sale, up to the amount of the expenditure (remaining benefit rule). A costly but depreciated improvement may therefore give rise only to partial compensation.

When are works carried out in joint ownership reimbursed?

Reimbursement in principle takes place at the time of the partition or sale of the property, the joint owner's claim being recorded in the joint ownership account. Calculating the increase in value for improvements requires knowing the value of the property on the date of liquidation, which often leads to waiting until then. The joint owner may nevertheless request payment of their claim before the partition, provided they establish its amount.

What can be done if the other joint owners refuse necessary works?

A joint owner faced with refusal or inaction on the part of the others may apply to the court on the basis of Article 815-5 of the French Civil Code to be authorised to carry out the act alone, where the refusal endangers the common interest. The court may also appoint an agent to administer a paralysed joint ownership. This judicial route is preferable to unlawful individual action, as it secures the completion of the works and their collective funding.

Is an oral agreement between the joint owners sufficient to commission works?

An oral agreement is legally valid but very difficult to prove in the event of a later dispute. It is strongly recommended to obtain written consent, even in the form of an email approving the quote, specifying the nature of the works and the allocation of the cost. This document avoids disputes over the principle and the amount of the works, and facilitates reimbursement at the time of the partition or sale.