Period of Validity of a Co-ownership General Meeting Decision

A co-owner who was absent from the annual general meeting discovers, two months later, that facade renovation works have been voted, with a share of the charges that he disputes. Another wonders: can the co-owners' association (syndicat) still, five years on, implement a resolution that was voted and then forgotten? These situations all rest on one poorly understood question: how long does a decision of a co-ownership (copropriété) general meeting remain valid, open to challenge, and then enforceable? This article clarifies three distinct mechanisms that are often confused: the two-month period for challenge, the final nature of a decision that has not been challenged, and the limitation period for its enforcement, including in the delicate case of a decision that was never applied.

Does a general meeting decision have a period of validity?

The first idea to correct: a decision properly adopted by the co-owners' general meeting has no expiry date. A resolution voted by the required majority does not lapse after one year, or after five. It remains valid until it has been annulled by a court, revoked by a later meeting, or rendered void because its subject matter has disappeared.

The question of the period of validity of a co-ownership general meeting decision in fact mixes three legal notions that must be carefully separated:

• the window during which the decision may be challenged in court, set at two months;
• the final nature it acquires once that window has closed;
• the period during which its enforcement may be pursued, which is a matter of limitation.

These three time frames follow different rules, deriving mainly from Law No. 65-557 of 10 July 1965 establishing the status of co-ownership and its implementing decree No. 67-223 of 17 March 1967. Confusing them leads to costly errors: believing that a decision that was not challenged in time can still be challenged, or thinking that an old resolution would automatically have expired.

The two-month period for challenge: the real countdown

The heart of the matter is Article 42, paragraph 2, of the Law of 10 July 1965. It lays down a strict rule:

Actions seeking to challenge decisions of general meetings must, on pain of forfeiture, be brought by dissenting or absent co-owners within a period of two months from the notification of those decisions made to them at the initiative of the property manager (syndic).

Two expressions deserve attention. First, on pain of forfeiture (à peine de déchéance): once the period has passed, the right to act is lost, purely and simply. This is not an indicative period but a cut-off. Second, this period applies only to actions seeking to challenge the decision, that is, to apply for its annulment.

Who may challenge: dissenting and absent co-owners

Not all co-owners are in the same position. Only the following may bring an action for annulment:

• the dissenting co-owners (opposants), that is, those who voted against the challenged resolution;
• the absent co-owners (défaillants), that is, those who were absent and not represented at the meeting.

A co-owner who voted for the resolution, or who abstained, cannot challenge it afterwards: he or she is deemed to have consented to it. This logic is concrete. Imagine the owner of a unit in a residence of thirty dwellings who votes in favour of a lift maintenance contract, then regrets the choice on discovering a cheaper provider. He or she will not be able to challenge the decision: the favourable vote bars it.

The absent co-owner, for his or her part, keeps the right to challenge precisely because he or she did not take part in the vote. This is why notification is essential to such a co-owner: without it, he or she does not know what was decided in his or her absence.

The starting point: notification of the minutes

The period for challenging a general meeting decision does not start to run on the day of the meeting, nor on the date on which the co-owner learns informally what was voted. It runs from the notification of the minutes, made at the initiative of the property manager. Decree No. 67-223 of 17 March 1967 requires the property manager to notify the minutes to dissenting and absent co-owners within one month of the meeting being held.

In practice, this notification takes the form of a registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt or of electronic notification, where the co-owner has previously consented to it. The date from which the two months run is that of the first presentation of the registered letter, and not that of its actual collection. The changes made to electronic notifications in co-ownership are set out in our article on the decree of 22 December 2025.

This starting point has a major consequence: if the property manager does not notify, or notifies irregularly, the two-month period does not run. A decision may then remain open to challenge well beyond two months after the meeting, for want of proper notification. This is a frequent blind spot: an absent co-owner who never received the minutes keeps the right to act. The burden of proving the notification, and its date, rests on the co-owners' association (syndicat), represented by the property manager.

Take an example. A meeting is held in March. The property manager sends the minutes by registered post to an absent co-owner, presented at his home on 5 April. The two-month period expires on 5 June. A writ served on 10 June is inadmissible, barred by forfeiture, however strong the arguments on the merits. Conversely, if no letter was ever presented, no period has run.

What becomes of a decision not challenged within two months?

Once the two-month period has elapsed without challenge, the decision becomes final. It can no longer be called into question by an action for annulment, even if it was tainted by an irregularity. The legal certainty of the co-ownership rests on this principle: after two months, all the co-owners, including those who were against, are bound by what the meeting decided.

This finality applies even to imperfect decisions: a failure to reach the required majority, a late notice of meeting, a question not included on the agenda. These defects, if not raised within two months, are cured by the passing of the period. The court can no longer examine them in an action for annulment. The rules on notice of meeting, agenda and voting, the breach of which grounds these irregularities, are set out in our guide to the co-ownership general meeting.

There are nuances depending on the seriousness of the defect. The courts distinguish, depending on the case, between voidable decisions, the challenge of which is confined within the two-month period, and certain rarer situations in which a resolution may be regarded as non-existent or null and void for never having been properly adopted. This distinction is technical and delicate to handle; in practice, prudence dictates treating any challenge as one that must be brought within two months, without relying on a possible characterisation as non-existent.

Finality does not, however, mean that the decision is immortal. A later general meeting can always revisit an earlier decision, by the appropriate majority, in order to amend or revoke it. What is settled is that an individual co-owner can no longer challenge it before the court: only a new collective deliberation can change the position.

Limitation of the enforcement of a co-ownership decision

Let us move from the right to challenge to the right to enforce. A final decision must be implemented: works to be carried out, calls for funds to be issued, a contract to be signed, an action to be brought. The question then becomes: for how long may the co-owners' association pursue the enforcement of a decision, and for how long may a co-owner demand its application?

Here Article 42, paragraph 1, of the Law of 10 July 1965 comes into play, concerning the limitation of the enforcement of a co-ownership decision:

Personal actions arising from the application of this law between co-owners, or between a co-owner and the co-owners' association, are subject to a limitation period of five years.

This five-year period results from Law No. 2018-1021 of 23 November 2018, known as the ELAN Law, which reduced the limitation period from ten to five years. Previously, personal actions were subject to a ten-year limitation period. The reform therefore significantly shortened the window for action, with the aim of settling situations more quickly.

In practical terms, this covers for example:

• the association's action to recover charges voted by a meeting;
• a co-owner's action demanding that works that were decided be carried out;
• actions for the settlement of accounts between a co-owner and the association.

The starting point of this period is in principle the day on which the holder of the right knew or should have known the facts enabling him or her to act. For a claim for charges, this is the due date of the corresponding call for funds. Each unpaid call starts its own five-year period, which explains why an association can no longer recover charges that are too old if it was slow to act.

A clear distinction must be drawn between the validity of the decision, which is not subject to this period, and the enforcement of the obligations it creates, which is. A resolution that has been voted remains legally valid beyond five years; it is the personal actions arising from it that become time-barred.

The special case of the decision never applied

This is the situation that gives rise to the most litigation and is the least well understood. A meeting votes for works, authorises an expense, decides to bring proceedings, and then, for various reasons, nothing happens. The property manager changes, the budget is lacking, the project is forgotten. Years later, someone brings the resolution back out. Is it still applicable?

The answer comes in three stages.

First, the decision remains valid. The mere fact that it was never implemented does not make it void. It has no intrinsic period of validity and is not subject to automatic lapse. It therefore retains its binding force with regard to the association and all the co-owners.

Second, enforcement may run up against the five-year limitation period under Article 42. If enforcement involves a personal action between the association and a co-owner, for example the recovery of a voted advance for works, that action is subject to a five-year limitation period. After that period, absent any act interrupting it, the association can no longer compel payment.

Third, and this is the most practical point, an old decision that was never applied often raises a problem of fit with reality. A resolution authorising works on the basis of an obsolete quotation, adopted five years earlier, generally cannot be implemented as it stands: prices have changed, the contractor no longer exists, the nature of the defects has evolved. In practice, the property manager cannot commit the expenditure on the sole basis of an authorisation that has lapsed in fact; he or she must put a new resolution to the meeting, with an updated quotation and a genuine financing plan.

By way of illustration, a co-ownership votes in 2019 for the renewal of the roof, authorising a specific quotation and a collective loan. The project is abandoned for want of a quorum on the financing. In 2025, the roof leaks again and the association wishes to act. The 2019 resolution has not been annulled, but it is no longer operational: the quotation has expired, and the financing arrangements are no longer valid. The property manager must call a new meeting to vote on a new contract. The 2019 decision has no direct enforceable value for services that no longer correspond to anything.

The reasoning differs where a decision creates an acquired position, for example an authorisation given to a co-owner to carry out private works affecting the common parts. If the authorisation was properly voted and was not challenged within two months, it stands; the co-owner in principle keeps the benefit of that authorisation, even if he or she is slow to carry out the works, provided that the conditions laid down by the meeting continue to be met.

How challenge, finality and enforcement fit together

These three periods follow one another according to a logic best visualised on a timeline. On the day of the meeting, the decision is adopted but fragile. For two months from notification, it may be annulled by the dissenting and absent co-owners. At the end of those two months, it becomes final and unchallengeable. Then, throughout its life, the obligations it generates may be enforced, but each personal action arising from it becomes time-barred after five years from its due date.

This interplay explains seemingly paradoxical situations. A decision may have become final, and therefore impossible to annul, while having become unenforceable because the claim it carried is time-barred. Conversely, a decision that was not notified remains open to challenge years later, even though the property manager believed it to be settled.

For the co-owner who wishes to challenge, the absolute priority is compliance with the two-month period. Checking the date of first presentation of the registered letter, identifying whether he or she is a dissenting or an absent co-owner, and applying to the judicial court (tribunal judiciaire) before the period expires conditions everything else. A late writ is inadmissible, even if well founded. Where the complaint concerns the action of the property manager rather than a resolution of the meeting, see our article on challenging the management or a decision of the co-ownership property manager.

For the association and the property manager, two reflexes are needed. Keep proof of the notifications, because without it the period does not run and uncertainty persists. And do not let an enforceable decision lie dormant: interrupt the limitation period by an appropriate act where enforcement drags, and do not hesitate to have a resolution that has become obsolete voted on again rather than rely on an old authorisation with no practical scope.

Conclusion

A decision of a co-ownership general meeting has no predefined period of validity: it stands until annulment, revocation or the disappearance of its subject matter. What is confined in time is two separate things. First, the right to challenge it, reserved to dissenting and absent co-owners within two months of the notification of the minutes, on pain of forfeiture. Second, the right to pursue its enforcement, subject to the five-year limitation period under Article 42 of the Law of 10 July 1965 since the ELAN Law of 2018. A decision that was never applied remains valid but often becomes inoperative, not because it would have expired, but because its implementation requires updated information and because the claims it generates become time-barred.

The decisive advice comes down to one sentence: on receiving the minutes, a co-owner who is considering a challenge must have the expiry date of his or her two-month period calculated precisely and bring the action before that date, without waiting. Beyond that point, only a new deliberation of the meeting can change the position. Before any action, have a lawyer check the regularity and the date of the notification: this is often where admissibility is decided.

Frequently asked questions

What is the period for challenging a decision of a co-ownership general meeting?

The period is two months, on pain of forfeiture, pursuant to Article 42 of Law No. 65-557 of 10 July 1965. It runs from the notification of the minutes by the property manager, and not from the date of the meeting. Only dissenting co-owners, who voted against, and absent co-owners, who were absent and not represented, may bring an action. The action is brought before the judicial court (tribunal judiciaire) for the place where the building is located.

Does a general meeting decision have an expiry date?

No. A decision properly adopted has no period of validity limited in time and does not automatically lapse. It remains valid until it has been annulled by a court, revoked by a later meeting or deprived of its subject matter. By contrast, personal actions arising from its application become time-barred after five years.

What happens if the property manager has not notified the minutes?

The two-month period for challenge starts to run only from a proper notification. Without notification, or in the event of irregular notification, a dissenting or absent co-owner keeps the right to act, including long after the meeting. The burden of proving the notification and its date rests on the co-owners' association, represented by the property manager, which makes keeping the acknowledgements of receipt indispensable.

Can a decision voted several years ago still be enforced?

The decision remains valid, but its enforcement may run up against limitation. Personal actions between a co-owner and the association have been subject to a five-year limitation period since the ELAN Law of 23 November 2018, compared with ten years previously. In addition, an old resolution based on an obsolete quotation often can no longer be applied as it stands: a new deliberation with updated information is then necessary.

Can a co-owner who voted in favour challenge the decision?

No. Only dissenting and absent co-owners have the right to challenge. A co-owner who voted in favour of the resolution, like one who abstained, is deemed to have consented to it and cannot apply for its annulment. This rule protects the stability of collective decisions against individual changes of mind.

What is the limitation period for recovering co-ownership charges?

Actions for the recovery of charges are subject to the five-year limitation period provided for by Article 42 of the Law of 10 July 1965. Each unpaid call for funds starts its own period from its due date. An association that is slow to act therefore risks no longer being able to recover the oldest calls, hence the importance of acts interrupting limitation.

Can a final decision nevertheless be amended?

Yes, but not by a co-owner acting alone before the court once the two-month period has elapsed. Only a later general meeting can revisit an earlier decision, amend it or revoke it, ruling by the majority applicable to the question concerned. Finality therefore protects the decision against individual challenges, without permanently freezing the collective will of the co-ownership.