Limitation period for co-ownership service charges

The limitation period for service charges in a co-ownership (copropriété) is one of the least known protective mechanisms available to co-owners, even though it can spare them from paying arrears that are sometimes substantial. Whether you have owned a flat for years or have recently bought a property in a co-ownership, understanding the limitation rules will allow you to assert your rights against a property manager (syndic) claiming old charges. This guide sets out the applicable time limits, the conditions for relying on limitation and the defence strategies against claims for time-barred charges.

The principle of limitation of co-ownership charges

Legal basis and general limitation period

The limitation of co-ownership charges is based on Article 2224 of the French Civil Code, which sets the general extinctive limitation period at five years for personal actions. This rule applies fully to claims for co-ownership charges, which are regarded as personal debts owed by the co-owner to the syndicate of co-owners (syndicat des copropriétaires). For the limitation period for unpaid rent and the grounds for interrupting it, see our analysis of rental claims.

The five-year period runs from the date on which each call for funds becomes payable. In practice, if a call for charges for the first quarter of 2019 was not the subject of a claim or court action before the first quarter of 2024, it is time-barred. This limitation automatically benefits the debtor co-owner, without any prior request being necessary.

Distinction from other limitation periods

A distinction should be drawn between the limitation of current charges and that applicable to exceptional works. Current charges (maintenance, heating, lift) follow the five-year rule. By contrast, calls for funds for major renovation works may sometimes fall within the ten-year period where they concern the liability of the builders, but this distinction remains rare in practice.

The case law of the Cour de cassation has made clear that even provisions for works approved at the general meeting remain subject to the five-year period where they constitute periodic claims of the syndicate against the co-owners.

Starting point of the limitation period

When charges and calls for funds become payable

The starting point of the limitation period is the date on which each claim for charges becomes payable. Charges become payable when the call for funds is notified to the co-owner, generally by registered letter or hand delivery. The mere adoption of the provisional budget at the general meeting is not sufficient to start the limitation period: there must be an actual call for funds.

Take the example of a co-owner who receives a quarterly call for charges on 15 January 2019, with a payment deadline of 31 January 2019. The limitation period runs from 1 February 2019, the day after the unpaid deadline. If no interrupting act occurs, this claim will be time-barred on 1 February 2024.

Special case of charge adjustments

Annual charge adjustments follow a different logic. Where the property manager adjusts the accounts at the end of the financial year and claims an additional amount, the limitation period runs from notification of that adjustment, and not from the period covered by the charges. This distinction protects co-owners against late claims for additional charges relating to past financial years.

Acts that interrupt limitation

Formal notice and its effects

The sending of a formal notice (mise en demeure) by the property manager interrupts the limitation period for five years from its receipt. This interruption does not merely suspend the period: it erases it completely and starts a new five-year period. The formal notice must be sufficiently precise, stating the sums claimed and their basis. The steps taken by the property manager, from formal notice to enforcement measures, are described in our article on the procedure for recovering unpaid charges.

A simple amicable reminder or a reminder in the statement of charges does not constitute a formal notice in the legal sense. A formal act is required, generally a registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt, clearly showing the creditor's intention to interrupt the limitation period.

Court proceedings as a ground for interruption

A writ of summons before the judicial court (tribunal judiciaire) interrupts the limitation period definitively, even if the proceedings subsequently encounter procedural incidents. This interruption benefits all the claims mentioned in the writ. However, if the claim is declared inadmissible or if the claimant discontinues, the limitation period resumes as if the interruption had never occurred.

Amicable recovery procedures conducted by debt collection companies instructed by the property manager are not interrupting acts, unless they lead to an actual referral to the court or to an acknowledgement of debt by the co-owner.

Acknowledgement of debt by the co-owner

Any act by which the co-owner expressly acknowledges the debt interrupts the limitation period. This acknowledgement may result from a letter, an email, or even a partial payment accompanied by a statement that it is an instalment towards a larger debt. The acknowledgement must be unequivocal and relate to a specific claim.

By contrast, signing the accounts at the general meeting does not amount to an acknowledgement of personal debt for arrears of charges, since that signature concerns the approval of the syndicate's collective accounts.

Limitation and sale of the co-ownership unit

Principle of transfer of debts

On the sale of a co-ownership unit, the buyer automatically becomes liable for the charges left unpaid by the predecessor, under Article 10 of the Law of 10 July 1965. This transfer takes place by operation of law, regardless of any mention in the deed of sale. However, the limitation rules continue to apply normally. The allocation of charges between seller and buyer on the transfer is dealt with in our article on adjustment of co-ownership charges on a sale.

If charges are time-barred at the time of the sale, the buyer may rely on limitation against the property manager, even though the buyer was not the owner when they became payable. This rule protects the buyer in good faith against claims for old charges that the seller allowed to become time-barred.

Duty of information and the état daté

The état daté (statement of sums due provided by the property manager) issued before the sale must state all sums payable, including those that may be time-barred. This duty of information allows the buyer to negotiate the sale price accordingly or to make the necessary provisions.

However, the mention of a claim in the état daté does not prevent limitation from applying if its conditions are met. The buyer may therefore rely on limitation in respect of old charges mentioned in the état daté, provided it is shown that the five-year period has elapsed without interruption.

Defence strategies against claims

Checking time limits and evidence

Faced with a claim for old charges, the first step is to check the date on which each claim became payable and to calculate the limitation period. This check often requires obtaining the supporting documents: original calls for funds, minutes of general meetings, correspondence exchanged.

The co-owner should put together a complete chronological file, distinguishing each claim according to the date on which it became payable. This methodical approach makes it possible to identify precisely the claims that are time-barred and those that are not yet.

Limitation defence and procedure

Limitation does not apply automatically: it must be raised by the debtor before the judge. This limitation defence may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, including for the first time on appeal. It is a defence on the merits that must be examined by the court before any order for payment.

The limitation defence is a matter of private interest: only the debtor co-owner may rely on it. The judge cannot raise it of their own motion, even if the obvious age of the claims reveals that they are time-barred.

Negotiation with the property manager

Before any court proceedings, negotiation with the property manager may resolve the dispute amicably. This approach is particularly relevant where some claims are clearly time-barred while others remain payable.

The negotiation may concern a payment schedule limited to the claims that are not time-barred, or an overall settlement taking into account the age of the debts and the procedural costs avoided. This solution has the advantage of preserving relations within the co-ownership while upholding the co-owner's rights.

Special cases and exceptions

Charges for emergency and safety works

Certain emergency works, in particular those ordered by the administrative authority for reasons of safety or health, may be subject to a special regime. Article L511-16 of the French Construction and Housing Code provides for reinforced recovery mechanisms where failure to carry out the prescribed measures results from the default of certain co-owners.

These provisions may lead to enforced recovery procedures that interrupt the limitation period in a particular way. However, they do not exempt the property manager from complying with the limitation periods for claims for current charges.

Co-ownerships in difficulty and provisional administrator

In co-ownerships placed under provisional administration under Article 29-1 of the Law of 10 July 1965, the limitation rules continue to apply normally. The provisional administrator has no special powers to revive time-barred claims, but may interrupt the limitation period for claims that are not yet time-barred by appropriate acts.

The appointment of a provisional administrator does not in itself constitute an act interrupting limitation. Only the specific acts of claim or enforcement carried out by that administrator have an effect on the running of the limitation period.

Limitation and insolvency proceedings

Judicial reorganisation of the co-owner

Where a co-owner is subject to judicial reorganisation (redressement judiciaire) proceedings, claims for charges may be lodged as liabilities in the proceedings. This lodging of claims interrupts the limitation period and precludes its subsequent application, even if the insolvency proceedings are closed without payment in full.

The property manager has two months from publication of the opening judgment to lodge the claims. If the claims are not lodged within this period, they are extinguished, which has a more radical effect than mere limitation.

Judicial liquidation and its effects on charges

In the event of judicial liquidation (liquidation judiciaire) of the co-owner, claims for charges arising before the opening judgment are lodged as liabilities and are subject to the effects of the insolvency proceedings. Claims arising after the judgment remain payable under the ordinary rules, including the limitation rules.

This chronological distinction can create complex situations in which charges for the same financial year fall under different legal regimes depending on whether they were called before or after the opening judgment.

Limitation and new means of communication

Electronic notifications and starting point

The move towards electronic communication between property managers and co-owners raises new questions about the starting point of the limitation period. Notification of a call for charges by email may be valid provided that certain conditions of form and evidence are met.

The case law tends to accept the validity of such electronic notifications, provided that the co-owner has expressly agreed to this method of communication and that the electronic acknowledgement of receipt is reliable. In that case, the limitation period runs from the proven date of electronic receipt.

Retention of electronic evidence

Electronic management of co-ownership records makes it easier to retain the evidence needed to establish limitation periods. However, it requires particular rigour in tracking what is sent and retaining acknowledgements of receipt.

Co-owners would be well advised to keep their own electronic records, in particular notification emails and acknowledgements of receipt, which are essential evidence for calculating limitation periods.

Conclusion

The limitation period for co-ownership charges provides effective protection for co-owners against late claims, provided its legal mechanisms are properly understood. The general five-year period applies strictly, but may be interrupted by specific acts of the property manager. The complexity of these rules calls for a methodical approach: systematic retention of documents, precise calculation of time limits, and advance preparation of defence strategies.

Faced with a claim for old charges, never pay without first checking whether limitation may apply. This check may spare you from paying significant sums that have been lawfully extinguished by the passage of time. In case of doubt, the assistance of an adviser acting in real estate law is valuable to analyse your situation and defend your rights.

Frequently asked questions

Are all co-ownership charges time-barred after five years? Yes, current co-ownership charges are time-barred five years after they become payable, under Article 2224 of the French Civil Code. This period runs separately for each call for funds, whether for current charges, provisions for works or annual adjustments.

Does a simple reminder letter interrupt the limitation period? No, a simple amicable reminder does not interrupt the limitation period. A formal notice is required, generally a registered letter clearly showing the intention to interrupt the limitation period, or a writ of summons. Reminder letters or entries in statements of charges are not sufficient.

Must I pay time-barred charges mentioned in the état daté? No, the mention of a claim in the état daté does not prevent limitation from applying if its conditions are met. You may rely on limitation in respect of old charges even if they appear in the état daté, provided you show that the five-year period has elapsed without interruption.

Does limitation benefit the buyer of a unit? Yes, the buyer may rely on limitation in respect of charges left unpaid by the predecessor if they meet the limitation conditions at the time of the claim. This protection applies even if the buyer was not the owner when the charges originally became payable.

How is the limitation period calculated precisely? The period runs from the day after the payment deadline set in the call for funds. For example, for a call for charges for the 1st quarter of 2019 with a deadline of 31 January 2019, the limitation period runs from 1 February 2019 to 1 February 2024. Each claim must be analysed individually according to the date on which it became payable.

Does signing the accounts at the general meeting interrupt the limitation period? No, signing the syndicate's accounts does not constitute an acknowledgement of personal debt interrupting limitation. That signature concerns the approval of the collective accounts and not the acknowledgement of individual arrears of charges.

Can I rely on limitation after I have started paying? Yes, a partial payment does not amount to a waiver of the benefit of limitation for the balance, unless the payment is accompanied by an express acknowledgement of the total debt. You retain the right to rely on limitation for the claims that meet its conditions, even after making partial payments.