Limitation of unpaid co-ownership charges (Article 42 of the 1965 Law): the period that extinguishes the association's claim

Arrears of service charges do not disappear because the co-owner is insolvent: they disappear because nobody interrupted the limitation period. Since Ordinance No. 2019-1101 of 30 October 2019, in force on 1 June 2020, the association of co-owners' claim is time-barred after five years and no longer after ten. For an institutional landlord holding several dozen lots, for an investor taking over an asset burdened with arrears, or for a co-ownership council that discovers a deteriorated statement of receivables on a change of property manager (syndic), the issue is binary: the debt is still payable, or it is extinguished. This analysis follows the timetable of the creditor association (syndicat des copropriétaires): the starting point call for funds by call for funds, the acts that genuinely interrupt time, the procedural errors that wipe out the debt, and then how the debt fits with the special statutory mortgage, the objection against the sale price and forced sale of real property.

The five-year period under Article 42: scope, transitional regime and boundaries

Article 42, paragraph 1, of Law No. 65-557 of 10 July 1965 sets the basic rule:

Personal actions arising from the application of this Law between co-owners, or between a co-owner and the association of co-owners, are time-barred after five years.

An action for payment of advances and of the balance of charges falls within this scope, as does the co-owner's mirror-image action for repayment of sums called in error. The limitation provided for in Article 42 of the 1965 Law is therefore a period after which the action is extinguished, the economic effect of which is the extinction of the debt: once the period has run, the association is left only with a natural obligation, which cannot be enforced, and the corresponding accounting entry must be written off as a loss.

The switch from ten to five years and the clearing of the old stock

The reduction of the period, applicable since 1 June 2020, did not retroactively wipe out older debts. In the absence of a specific transitional provision, it is Article 2222, paragraph 2, of the French Civil Code that governs the transition: the new period runs from the entry into force of the new law, without the total duration being able to exceed that provided for by the previous law. The operational consequence for debts that fell due before 1 June 2020 and were not interrupted is that they were extinguished by 1 June 2025 at the latest. A receivables audit carried out today on a portfolio of lots must therefore deal separately with two blocks: the stock predating June 2020, in principle cleared, and the later calls, which are subject to the rolling five-year period.

What Article 42 does not absorb

Three boundaries are worth keeping in mind. First, the two-year limitation period in Article L. 218-2 of the French Consumer Code does not apply to calls for funds: the association does not act as a professional supplying a service to a consumer, and the case law consistently rejects this defence, which debtor co-owners regularly raise. Second, the two-month bar period in Article 42, paragraph 2, for challenging a general meeting decision is unrelated to the limitation of the debt: a co-owner who has not challenged the resolution voting the works within that period can no longer dispute its principle, but keeps the right to raise the five-year limitation against the corresponding calls. Finally, once a judgment has been obtained, the Article 42 period gives way to the enforcement period for enforceable titles in Article L. 111-4 of the French Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures, that is, ten years.

The starting point: a limitation period that runs call by call

The most costly mistake is to reason on a "global debt" of the co-owner. There is no single claim for charges, but a succession of autonomous claims, each with its own starting point, which is its due date.

Advances on the forecast budget

Advances voted on the forecast budget fall due, under Article 14-1 of the 1965 Law, on the first day of each quarter or on the first day of the period set by the general meeting. The five-year period therefore runs from that date, advance by advance. A co-owner's account that has been in debit for seven financial years thus contains time-barred calls and recoverable calls, and the preparatory work before any summons consists in identifying the oldest line that can still usefully be claimed.

Expenditure outside the forecast budget and works

For expenditure falling under Article 14-2 of the 1965 Law, such as energy renovation works, facade restoration and lift compliance works, the due date results from the arrangements voted by the meeting: a single call on a fixed date, or staged calls tied to progress. The starting point follows the voted timetable, and not the date of the contractor's invoice. In co-ownerships engaged in major works programmes, where the schedule of calls is spread over several financial years, tracking must be kept call by call, failing which the first instalments become time-barred while the works are still under way.

The adjustment balance

The debit balance resulting from the approval of the annual accounts is a separate claim, the starting point of which is the date of the general meeting that approves the accounts. Two clarifications are needed. Approval of the accounts does not amount to an acknowledgement of debt by the debtor co-owner and therefore does not interrupt any limitation period already running on earlier advances. And the vote of a resolution authorising the property manager to pursue unpaid sums has, in itself, no interrupting effect: only the act actually carried out has that effect.

Acceleration under Article 19-2: a double-edged tool

Article 19-2 of the 1965 Law allows the property manager, after a formal notice that has remained unsuccessful for thirty days, to make immediately payable the advances on the forecast budget not yet due as well as the sums still owed for earlier financial years after approval of the accounts, and to apply to the President of the judicial court under the accelerated procedure on the merits. The tool is remarkably effective for obtaining a title quickly. It must nevertheless be used with awareness of its side effect: by making the whole of the current year's budget payable, it triggers the starting point of the five-year period on sums that would otherwise have fallen due only quarter after quarter. Invoking Article 19-2 without then bringing the action shortens the association's timetable instead of extending it. The stages of recovery, from formal notice to obtaining an enforceable title, are set out in our article on the property manager's procedure for recovering charges.

Interrupting and suspending acts: what works and what does not

The subject is governed by the general law in Articles 2238 to 2246 of the Civil Code. The sorting is brutal.

A formal notice does not interrupt the limitation period

This is the leading cause of the unintended extinction of claims for unpaid co-ownership charges. A registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt, a reminder from the manager, a demand to pay served by a commissaire de justice (bailiff) outside any enforcement measure: none of these acts interrupts the period. Since the reform made by Law No. 2008-561 of 17 June 2008, only a claim brought in court, acknowledgement by the debtor, a protective measure and an act of forced enforcement have this effect. A recovery policy based on annual reminders produces a thick file and an extinguished claim.

The acts that genuinely interrupt time

• a claim brought in court, even in summary proceedings (référé), even before a court lacking jurisdiction or where the claim is affected by a defect of form (Article 2241 of the Civil Code);
• a protective measure taken under the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures, in particular a protective attachment of receivables or a provisional judicial mortgage, and an act of forced enforcement (Article 2244 of the Civil Code);
• acknowledgement by the debtor of the association's right (Article 2240 of the Civil Code): part payment, signature of a staggered payment agreement, a letter acknowledging the principle of the debt;
• the filing of a claim in collective insolvency proceedings, which interrupts limitation until the proceedings are closed and counts as an act of enforcement (Article L. 622-25-1 of the French Commercial Code).

Interruption wipes out the time already elapsed and starts a new period of the same length. A claim brought in court retains its interrupting effect until the proceedings come to an end, which shifts the risk to the conduct of the proceedings.

Suspension: mediation, investigative measures, over-indebtedness

Suspension stops the running of the period without wiping out the time already elapsed. It applies in particular where mediation or conciliation is used (Article 2238 of the Civil Code), which directly concerns charges disputes below the threshold in Article 750-1 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, which are subject to a prior attempt at amicable resolution. It also applies where an investigative measure is ordered before any proceedings (Article 2239 of the Civil Code). On the side of a debtor who is an individual, the decision declaring admissible an application for over-indebtedness treatment suspends enforcement proceedings, without wiping out the debt for as long as no write-off measure has been ordered.

Allocation of payments, an under-used lever

When a co-owner resumes part payments, allocation is governed by Article 1342-10 of the Civil Code: the debtor may designate the debt that the debtor intends to discharge and, failing that, allocation is made to debts that are due, then to the debt that the debtor had the greatest interest in discharging, and, where interests are equal, to the oldest. A property manager who lets the debtor systematically allocate payments to recent calls arranges the limitation of the manager's own arrears. The payment schedule agreement must therefore expressly stipulate priority allocation to the oldest claims, and state that each payment amounts to an interrupting acknowledgement in respect of the whole of the balance acknowledged.

The procedural errors that extinguish the claim

Beyond inaction, several procedural configurations destroy the interrupting effect already acquired. Article 2243 of the Civil Code leaves no room for nuance: the interruption is treated as never having occurred if the claimant withdraws the claim, lets the proceedings lapse, or if the claim is finally dismissed. The period is then deemed never to have been interrupted, and the claim may turn out to be time-barred on the day the association issues a fresh summons.

The most frequent breaking points in the recovery of charges by the association are the following:

• lapse of proceedings, which occurs after two years without steps by the parties (Article 386 of the Code of Civil Procedure), typically where proceedings are put on hold while an amicable payment schedule is tried and fails;
• withdrawal of proceedings agreed after a part payment, without an agreement providing for acknowledgement of the balance;
• removal of the case from the list for lack of steps, which extends no period;
• change of property manager, a critical moment where an incomplete handover of documents, in particular earlier procedural documents, makes it impossible to demonstrate the interruption;
• a summons issued in the name of the association without the property manager showing a mandate that is currently valid, the lack of authority being capable of founding a plea of inadmissibility;
• lapse of the payment order constituting seizure of real property, for want of publication within the regulatory period or of a summons to the orientation hearing.

On the point of the mandate, a useful clarification: Article 55 of Decree No. 67-223 of 17 March 1967 exempts the property manager from needing the authorisation of the general meeting for actions to recover debts, protective measures and the use of enforcement procedures. The absence of a resolution voted is therefore not, in itself, a useful defence for the co-owner, contrary to what is regularly argued.

Finally, the association must secure the allocation of costs. Article 10-1 a) of the 1965 Law places on the defaulting co-owner alone the necessary costs incurred for recovery from the date of the formal notice, in particular the costs of reminders and of taking a mortgage, and the fees and emoluments of the commissaire de justice. These costs follow the fate of the principal claim: if it is time-barred, the accessory goes with it.

From the claim to the price: special statutory mortgage and objection on transfer

Limitation cannot be managed in isolation from ranking. Ordinance No. 2021-1192 of 15 September 2021 reforming the law of security interests, in force on 1 January 2022, converted the association's former special real-property privilege into a special statutory mortgage (hypothèque légale spéciale), now referred to in Article 2402 of the Civil Code. It attaches to the lot sold and secures payment of the charges and works relating to the current year and the last four years that have fallen due. On the basis, registration and ranking of this security, see our analysis of the special statutory mortgage of the association of co-owners.

This time scope must be set against the Article 42 period. The two periods are close but do not overlap: a claim for charges may remain legally payable and at the same time fall outside the base of the security, the association then dropping to unsecured ranking for that portion. In other words, inaction costs twice, first the ranking, then the claim.

The objection under Article 20: fifteen days, not one more

On the transfer of a lot, the notary notifies the transfer of ownership to the property manager. Article 20 I of the 1965 Law gives the property manager a period of fifteen days from that notification to lodge an objection, by an act of a commissaire de justice, in order to obtain payment of the sums still owed by the former owner. The objection must, on pain of nullity, state the amount and the grounds of the debt. After the period has expired, the price is distributed and the association loses the benefit of immediate recovery from the funds held by the notary, which does not extinguish the claim but severely reduces the likelihood of collecting it.

Two further safeguards exist: the dated statement (état daté) sent to the notary by the property manager under the Decree of 17 March 1967, which quantifies the seller's debt, and the mechanism of Article 20 II, which in practice makes completion of the sale conditional on proof that the charges have been cleared, the debt being otherwise enforceable against the buyer. For an investor acquiring a lot en bloc or a split-ownership asset in a co-ownership, auditing the dated statement and the existence of earlier objections is among the non-negotiable steps of due diligence: it reveals both the inherited liabilities and the financial health of the association.

Extinction of the claim extinguishes the security

The mortgage is accessory to the obligation it secures. A time-barred claim can no longer found a useful objection, a registration of a judicial mortgage, or seizure proceedings. A property manager who lodges an objection for an amount including time-barred calls exposes the association to a challenge to the objection and, depending on the circumstances, to an order under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Clearing up the co-owner's account must come before the act, not after it.

Seizure of real property: a timetable with breaking points

Where the debtor is the owner-occupier or the landlord of the lot, seizure of real property remains the final lever. It presupposes an enforceable title recording a liquid and payable claim (Article L. 311-2 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures). A judgment obtained under Article 19-2 or on the merits opens an enforcement period of ten years (Article L. 111-4 of the same Code), but this period covers only the sums already adjudged: charges falling after the decision are new claims, subject to the five-year period and requiring a new title or an extension within the proceedings. The conduct of this method of enforcement applied to a co-ownership lot is dealt with separately in our article on seizure of real property brought by the association.

The seizure timetable is marked by time limits sanctioned by lapse:

• service of the payment order constituting seizure of real property, which makes the property unavailable and counts as an interrupting act of forced enforcement;
• publication of the order at the land registry within the regulatory period, failing which the act lapses;
• summons of the debtor to the orientation hearing within two months following publication;
• orientation hearing, at which the enforcement judge rules on challenges, including limitation, and orders an amicable sale or a forced sale;
• distribution of the price, where the ranking of the special statutory mortgage determines the share actually recovered.

It is at the orientation hearing that limitation is argued, and that a poorly broken-down arrears claim is cut back. The practice is to present a statement broken down by financial year, by type of call and by due date, together with the corresponding interrupting acts. A global statement that is not broken down invites challenge.

The decision timetable of the creditor association

The management of limitation of charges is steered as a chain of dated decisions, not as a reminder policy.

• From the first default in paying an advance: formal notice, which opens the thirty-day period in Article 19-2 and triggers allocation of the costs under Article 10-1 a), it being established that it does not interrupt limitation.
• On expiry of the thirty days: a choice between the accelerated procedure on the merits under Article 19-2 and a summons on the merits, depending on the amount, the apparent solvency and the existence of a dispute on the regularity of the meetings.
• In parallel, if the debtor has attachable assets: a protective measure, which interrupts the period and secures ranking without waiting for the title.
• Every six months: review of the co-owner's account, identifying the oldest uninterrupted call and the date on which it is extinguished.
• On each notification of a transfer by the notary: objection within fifteen days, after clearing out the time-barred lines.
• On each change of property manager: adversarial inventory of the interrupting acts and pending proceedings, included in the handover record.

The common thread is simple: inaction is a decision, and it is irreversible. The reduction of the period to five years removed the margin of tolerance enjoyed by badly administered co-ownerships under the ten-year period, and the conversion of the privilege into a special statutory mortgage changed nothing about the accessory nature of the security. For an association, for an institutional landlord holding lots or for an investor taking over an asset in a co-ownership, limitation must be treated as a steering datum and not as a defence discovered at the hearing.

Before any summons or any objection on the sale price, have a statement drawn up call by call, dated and backed by the interrupting acts produced: it is this document, and not the overall amount shown in the ledger, that determines what the association can actually recover.

Frequently asked questions

What is the limitation period for unpaid co-ownership charges today? Five years, under Article 42, paragraph 1, of Law No. 65-557 of 10 July 1965, as worded following Ordinance No. 2019-1101 of 30 October 2019, in force on 1 June 2020. The previous period was ten years. For debts that fell due before 1 June 2020, Article 2222, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code started the new period running from that date, without exceeding the original ten-year duration. In practice, these old debts have been extinguished since 1 June 2025 in the absence of an interrupting act.

From what date does limitation start to run: the first unpaid sum or the approval of the accounts? Neither, on a global basis. Each call has its own starting point, which is its due date. For advances on the forecast budget, it is the first day of the quarter or of the period set by the general meeting (Article 14-1 of the 1965 Law). For expenditure outside the forecast budget, it is the voted date of the call. For the adjustment balance, it is the date of the general meeting that approves the accounts.

Does a formal notice by registered letter interrupt limitation? No. Since Law No. 2008-561 of 17 June 2008, only a claim brought in court, acknowledgement of the right by the debtor, a protective measure and an act of forced enforcement interrupt the period (Articles 2240 to 2244 of the Civil Code). The formal notice retains another use: it opens the thirty-day period in Article 19-2 of the 1965 Law allowing acceleration, and it triggers the allocation of recovery costs to the defaulting co-owner under Article 10-1 a).

Does the two-year limitation period in the Consumer Code apply to co-ownership charges? No. The argument is frequently raised in defence on the basis of Article L. 218-2 of the Consumer Code, but the case law holds that the association of co-owners does not act, in relation to its co-owners, as a professional supplying a service to a consumer. It is the special five-year period in Article 42 of the 1965 Law that applies.

Does the property manager need the authorisation of the general meeting to sue a debtor co-owner? Not for the recovery of debts. Article 55 of Decree No. 67-223 of 17 March 1967 exempts the property manager from prior authorisation for actions to recover debts, protective measures and the use of enforcement procedures. Authorisation is, however, still required for most of the association's other court actions. The property manager must in any event show a mandate that is valid on the date of the act.

What happens to the claim once judgment has been obtained? The Article 42 period gives way to the enforcement period for enforceable titles, that is, ten years from the decision (Article L. 111-4 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures). Note, however, that this period covers only the sums adjudged. Charges called afterwards are new claims, subject to the five-year period, and require their own title.

Are old but not time-barred arrears secured by the association's statutory mortgage? Not necessarily. The special statutory mortgage in Article 2402 of the Civil Code, introduced by Ordinance No. 2021-1192 of 15 September 2021, covers only the charges and works of the current year and the last four years that have fallen due. Beyond that, the claim subsists for as long as it is not time-barred, but it becomes unsecured and the likelihood of recovering it on distribution of the price falls sharply. Managing ranking is therefore as constraining as managing limitation.