Pre-état daté and état daté: the information on which the allocation of charges depends when a unit is sold

An institutional landlord selling off a building unit by unit (à la découpe), a property company rebalancing a residential building, a creditor realising a seized asset: in all these cases, the price is negotiated on the basis of an asset assumed to be clean, while the real burden of the unit continues to run until the accounts of the current financial year are approved. Between the preliminary sale agreement (promesse de vente) and the deed, two separate documents fix the information and the statement of account: the pre-état daté of Article L. 721-2 of the French Construction and Housing Code (CCH), handed to the purchaser, and the état daté of Article 5 of Decree No. 67-223 of 17 March 1967, sent by the property manager (syndic) to the notary. Decree No. 2025-1292 of 22 December 2025 rewrote these two elements of the framework, Articles 5 and 6-2 of the 1967 Decree, in the wording in force since 25 December 2025. This guide addresses the question from the side of the seller and of the co-ownership association (syndicat des copropriétaires): what these documents actually commit, which charges remain with the seller after the transfer of ownership, and on what ground the dispute over allocation that follows the sale is fought.

Two documents, two regimes: do not confuse the pre-état daté and the état daté

In practice, “pre-état daté” commonly designates the set of documents and information in paragraph II of Article L. 721-2 of the CCH. This document falls within the purchaser's right to information: it is handed to the purchaser no later than the date the preliminary agreement is signed, and its scope is that defined in paragraph I of Article L. 721-2, namely the sale of a unit or part of a unit, or the transfer of a real right in property relating to a unit, in a building wholly or partly for residential use subject to the co-ownership (copropriété) regime.

The état daté follows a different logic. Under Article 5 of the Decree of 17 March 1967, the property manager, before any of the deeds mentioned in Article 4 of the same Decree is drawn up, sends it to the notary instructed to receive the deed, at the latter's request or at that of the co-owner who is transferring all or part of its rights in the unit or units that are the subject of a single transfer. It is an accounting document settling the seller's position towards the association, intended for the person drawing up the deed, not an information notice intended to inform the purchaser's consent.

The operational consequence is simple for an institutional seller. The two documents do not replace one another, are not requested at the same time, are not sent to the same recipients and do not carry the same sanctions. A sale file that contains only the état daté risks leaving the withdrawal period unextinguished; a file that contains only the pre-état daté leaves the notary without a statement with which to close the seller's account.

The pre-état daté: what the seller must have produced before the preliminary agreement

Documents relating to the organisation of the building

Paragraph 1° of II of Article L. 721-2 covers the summary data sheet of the co-ownership provided for in Article 8-2 of the Law of 10 July 1965, the co-ownership rules (règlement de copropriété) and the descriptive division statement together with any deeds amending them if they have been published, and the minutes of the general meetings of the last three years, except where the selling co-owner has been unable to obtain them from the property manager. This reservation on the minutes is the only tolerance in the text: it presupposes that the seller can show it made the request and that it went unanswered.

Paragraph II continues with the building maintenance log (3°), an information notice on the rights and obligations of co-owners and the functioning of the association's bodies (4°), where applicable the conclusions of the overall technical diagnostic referred to in the last paragraph of Article L. 731-1 of the CCH (5°), the multi-year works plan adopted under the conditions provided for in the first paragraph of II of Article 14-2 of the 1965 Law (6°) and, failing that, the draft multi-year works plan referred to in the first paragraph of I of Article 14-2 if one has been prepared (7°). These last two points, introduced by Article 171 of Law No. 2021-1104 of 22 August 2021 known as the Climate and Resilience law, have applied since 1 January 2024: a sale file built on the old list, which stopped at the conclusions of the DTG, is incomplete. The implications of these documents for the purchaser on the day of signing are set out in our article on the multi-year works plan and the DTG.

Two exceptions lighten the documentary burden. The documents referred to in 1° and 3° to 7° are not required where the purchaser already owns at least one unit in the same co-ownership, a frequent configuration in unit-by-unit sales where the occupying tenant or an investor already present in the building is the buyer. The documents referred to in c of 1° and in 3° to 7° are not required on the sale of an ancillary unit, Article L. 721-2 citing in particular the parking space, cellar, attic, storeroom, cupboard, shed, garage or pantry.

The financial information in 2°: the heart of the allocation risk

Paragraph 2° of II lists four blocks of financial information:

• a) the amount of the current charges of the forecast budget and of the charges outside the forecast budget paid by the selling co-owner for the two financial years preceding the sale;
• b) the sums likely to be owed to the co-ownership association by the purchaser;
• c) the overall statement of unpaid charges within the association and of the debt towards suppliers;
• d) where the association has a works fund, the amount of the share of the works fund attached to the main unit sold and the amount of the last contribution to the fund paid by the selling co-owner in respect of its unit.

The text specifies that the information in a, c and d is up to date with the information submitted to the annual general meeting responsible for approving the accounts preceding the signing of the preliminary sale agreement. This timing is decisive: the information owed relates to a closed position, not to a real-time situation. The content of this financial information is specified by order of the minister responsible for housing, the applicable text of which must be checked at the date of the transaction.

By exception, where the association falls under the second paragraph of Article 14-3 of the Law of 10 July 1965, the information referred to in b and c is not required. The small structures concerned are therefore released from the obligation to disclose the association's overall debt position, which shifts the purchaser's due diligence towards examination of the minutes.

Sale without a preliminary agreement and public sale

Where the notarial deed is not preceded by a preliminary agreement, paragraph III of Article L. 721-2 requires the documents and information referred to in 1°, in c of 2° and in 3° to 7° of II to be attached to the draft notarial deed notified or handed to the purchaser, in accordance with the fifth paragraph of Article L. 271-1 of the CCH. In the case of a public sale, paragraph IV requires the documents and information referred to in 1° to 7° of II to be annexed to the conditions of sale. For a pursuing creditor or a seller realising an asset by auction, drawing up the conditions of sale therefore presupposes having obtained the whole documentary block from the property manager, including the financial information.

The sanction for failure to hand over: a withdrawal period that does not run

Article L. 721-3 of the CCH pronounces no nullity. It moves the starting point of the period: where the documents and information referred to in 1° and 2° of II of Article L. 721-2 are not handed to the purchaser no later than the date the preliminary agreement is signed, the withdrawal period provided for in Article L. 271-1 runs only from the day after the communication of those documents and information to the purchaser.

Where the documents and information referred to in 1° and in c of 2° of II of Article L. 721-2 are not attached to the draft notarial deed in accordance with paragraph III of Article L. 721-2, the cooling-off period referred to in Article L. 271-1 runs only from the day after the communication of those documents and information to the purchaser.

The communication is made in the manner of notification or delivery of the preliminary agreement or of the notarial deed provided for in Article L. 271-1. The seller's exposure is therefore an exposure of timing, not an exposure to annulment of the sale: as long as the handover is not complete and proven, the right of withdrawal remains open, including on the eve of completion. On a unit-by-unit sale programme comprising several dozen units, this uncertainty translates into a risk of chain slippage in the cash collection timetable.

Proof of handover is dealt with by the text itself: the purchaser attests to the handover either in the deed containing the preliminary sale agreement by its mere signature where it is a notarial deed, or, where the deed is made under private signature, in a document that it signs and dates in its own hand. Handover may take place on any medium and by any means, including by electronic process, subject to the purchaser's express acceptance. That express acceptance must be formalised: a data room platform opened without documented agreement does not, on its own, constitute the proof required.

The état daté: three-part structure and real scope of the property manager's commitment

Article 5 of the Decree of 17 March 1967, in the wording resulting from Article 2 of Decree No. 2025-1292 of 22 December 2025, organises the état daté in three parts.

First part. The property manager states in it, even approximately and subject to the clearing of the accounts, the sums that may remain owed to the association by the selling co-owner, for each unit concerned, in respect of payable provisions of the forecast budget (a), payable provisions for expenditure not included in the forecast budget (b), unpaid charges for previous financial years (c), the sums referred to in Article 33 of the Law of 10 July 1965 (d), payable advances (e), the amount remaining owed by the selling co-owner who takes part in the loan taken out under Article 26-4 of the 1965 Law (f), and the amount paid by the surety institution referred to in Articles 26-7 and 26-12 of the same Law in the event of the selling co-owner's default in repaying the loan or in its contribution to that repayment (g). The last two items are new: a seller that has joined a collective loan can no longer consider that its position stops at calls for charges. This information is communicated by the property manager to the notary or to the selling owner, who must where applicable bring it to the attention of registered creditors.

Second part. The property manager states in it, subject to the same reservation of approximation and clearing, the sums for which the association may be indebted to the seller, in respect of the advances referred to in Article 45-1 of the Decree and provisions for periods after the current period made payable by reason of the acceleration provided for in Article 19-2 of the 1965 Law. This is the part that institutional sellers most often neglect, even though it conditions the return of advances sometimes built up over a long period.

Third part. It lists the sums that should fall on the new co-owner: replenishment of the advances of Article 45-1, even approximately, provisions of the forecast budget not yet payable, provisions not yet payable for expenditure not included in the forecast budget. An annex to this third part states the sum corresponding, for the two preceding financial years, to the share attributable to each unit in the forecast budget and in the total of expenditure outside the forecast budget, and mentions, where applicable, the subject and status of the ongoing proceedings to which the association is a party.

This last mention is strategic for both parties. A construction dispute, an action for payment against a significant debtor co-owner or a dispute with a service provider appear in the annex and thereby become part of the negotiation file. On the seller's side, failing to declare a known proceeding does not remove the risk of argument over the information delivered.

The scope of the état daté must be measured by the wording of the text itself. The sums are given “even approximately and subject to the clearing of the accounts”: the document photographs an account during the financial year, it does not definitively settle the seller's position. The question of the extent to which it binds the property manager or the association towards the parties is for the courts to assess and not for the text; it cannot be decided a priori in a deed of sale.

As to cost, Annex 1 of the 1967 Decree, which sets the standard property manager contract, places services linked to the transfer among the costs and fees chargeable to the individual co-owners alone, so that their cost is chargeable to the co-owner concerned alone and not to the association. The amount that may be invoiced for the état daté is subject to a regulatory cap, the applicable text of which must be checked at the date of the service. Beware of the transitional regime: Annex 1 in the wording resulting from Article 20 of Decree No. 2025-1292 applies to property manager contracts concluded after its entry into force and, for contracts in progress, subject to the conclusion of an amendment introducing the service referred to in 16° bis of VI of Annex 2. Two neighbouring co-ownerships may therefore, on the same date, fall under two different fee scales.

The rule for allocating charges on the sale of a unit: Article 6-2 of the 1967 Decree

It is Article 6-2 of the Decree of 17 March 1967, in the wording in force since 25 December 2025, that governs the allocation between seller and buyer. It lays down three rules, and only three.

1° Payment of the payable provision of the forecast budget, pursuant to the third paragraph of I of Article 14-1 of the Law of 10 July 1965, falls on the seller; 2° Payment of provisions for expenditure not included in the forecast budget falls on whoever, seller or purchaser, is a co-owner at the time the sum becomes payable; 3° Any over- or under-collection on provisions, revealed by the approval of the accounts, is credited or debited to the account of whoever is a co-owner when the accounts are approved.

The amendment made in December 2025 is one of drafting: the cross-reference now points to the third paragraph of I of Article 14-1, the substantive rule remaining the same. The mechanism is read together with Article 14-1 of the 1965 Law, paragraph I of which provides that co-owners pay the association provisions equal to a quarter of the voted budget, the general meeting being able to set different arrangements, the provision being payable on the first day of each quarter or on the first day of the period set by the general meeting. Paragraph II specifies that the association's expenditure on works, the list of which is set by decree of the Conseil d'État, is not included in the forecast budget and that the related sums are payable according to the arrangements voted by the general meeting.

Three consequences for a seller.

First, the payable provision of the forecast budget remains entirely its responsibility, with no pro-rating at the date of transfer of ownership. A seller that signs the notarial deed during a quarter already begun has borne that quarter's provision in full, unless the parties agree otherwise on the economic level. The text provides for no pro rata temporis allocation.

Next, for expenditure outside the forecast budget, it is the due date as fixed by the general meeting resolution that identifies the debtor, and not the date of the vote, nor the date the works are carried out, nor the invoice date. A general meeting may vote a facade renovation programme at the end of the financial year and provide for staged calls: each call follows ownership on the day it falls due. This is the point most often badly anticipated in sales signed between the holding of the meeting and the first call for funds.

Finally, any over- or under-collection revealed by the approval of the accounts is credited to the account of whoever is a co-owner when the accounts are approved. If the financial year in which the sale took place is approved after the transfer of ownership, it is the purchaser who benefits from the favourable adjustment or bears the shortfall, even though the corresponding expenditure was incurred in part while the seller owned the unit. An institutional seller that sells at the end of the financial year a unit in a co-ownership that has overrun its budget thus mechanically passes on the debit balance of the adjustment.

The parties frequently stipulate price reduction clauses or accounts between themselves to correct these effects. Article 6-2 does not contemplate them: it organises the allocation without referring to the parties' agreement. The effect of such stipulations as against the association, a third party to the deed, must therefore be assessed case by case and cannot be taken for granted.

The association's recovery from the price: notice of transfer, objection and statutory mortgage

Article 20 of the Law of 10 July 1965 organises the association's recovery on the occasion of the transfer. Paragraph I sets a simple alternative for the seller.

If the seller presents to the notary a certificate from the property manager dated less than one month earlier, attesting that it is free of any obligation towards the association, the notice and objection mechanism is not triggered. Failing that, notice of the transfer (avis de mutation) must be given by the notary to the property manager by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt within fifteen days of the date of transfer of ownership.

The property manager then has, before the expiry of a period of fifteen days from receipt of that notice, the power to lodge an objection to the payment of the funds, at the chosen address for service, by extrajudicial instrument, in order to obtain payment of the sums remaining owed by the former owner. The objection includes the choice of an address for service within the jurisdiction of the judicial court (tribunal judiciaire) of the place where the building is located and, on pain of nullity, states the amount and the causes of the debt. Its effects are limited to the amount thus stated.

The notary releases the funds as soon as the property manager and the seller agree on the sums remaining owed. Failing agreement, within three months of the property manager lodging a valid objection, the notary pays the sums withheld to the association, unless one of the parties challenges the objection before the courts. Any amicable or judicial payment or transfer of the price made in breach of these provisions cannot be enforced against a property manager who has validly lodged an objection. Finally, a valid objection amounts, for the benefit of the association, to enforcement of the statutory mortgage referred to in Article 19-1 of the 1965 Law. The former terminology of the special real property lien (privilège immobilier spécial) is no longer in use.

The strategic reading is symmetrical. On the association's side, the objection is an attachment of the price in the hands of the notary, provided it is lodged within fifteen days, by extrajudicial instrument, and quantified in its causes: approximate drafting of the instrument is the leading cause of nullity. On the seller's side, producing a certificate dated less than one month earlier attesting that it is free of any obligation neutralises the mechanism and secures the release of the price, which presupposes having cleared its position before signing and not waiting for the état daté to discover arrears.

The filter in Article 20 II: the purchaser's situation conditions the sale

Paragraph II of Article 20, in the wording resulting from Law No. 2024-322 of 9 April 2024, adds a condition that bears directly on the seller's timetable. Before the notarial deed is drawn up, where applicable after waiver by the holder of the pre-emption right created under the last paragraph of Article L. 211-4 of the French Town Planning Code, the notary notifies the property manager of the name of the prospective purchaser or, where the purchaser is a SCI (French property holding company) or a general partnership (société en nom collectif), the names of the corporate officers and partners, together with the names of their spouses or partners bound by a civil solidarity pact (PACS).

Within one month, the property manager delivers to the notary a certificate dated less than one month earlier attesting either that those persons are not co-owners of the building concerned by the transfer, or, if one of them is, that it has not been the subject of a formal notice to pay from the property manager that has remained unsuccessful for more than forty-five days. If the purchaser is not up to date within the meaning of this text, the notary notifies the parties that the sale cannot be concluded. Where a preliminary contract has been signed, those concerned have thirty days from that notification to pay their debt; failing production of a certificate attesting to payment of the charges at the end of that period, the preliminary contract is deemed null and void through the fault of the purchaser.

For an institutional seller selling to investors structured as SCIs, this filter is not a formality. It requires identifying upstream the chain of partners and corporate officers, checking their position in the co-ownership concerned, and building into the reverse schedule a one-month processing period on the property manager's side, to which a thirty-day regularisation period may be added. On a multi-unit sale operation, this is the variable most likely to disrupt a cash collection timetable.

Post-sale allocation disputes: where the risk really lies

Disputes after the transfer concentrate on three points, all of which come from the same source: the état daté fixes a provisional position, while Article 6-2 allocates according to events some of which occur after the sale.

The first point is the gap between the amount shown in the first part of the état daté and the seller's real position after clearing. The text itself states that the sums are given even approximately and subject to the clearing of the accounts. A seller that has paid the sum indicated therefore does not obtain a discharge: the question of the extent of its residual obligation and of the remedies available, against the association as against the property manager, is settled case by case, according to the origin of the gap.

The second point is the due date of calls outside the forecast budget. In practice the debate concerns the due date fixed by the general meeting resolution, often imprecise, and the identification of the co-owner at that date where the sale and the call are close together. For the association, which pursues the registered co-owner, the aim is not to be the arbiter of a conflict between seller and buyer. For the seller, the aim is to have the resolution in its exact wording, and not a mere call for funds, in order to invoke the rule in 2° of Article 6-2.

The third point is the annual adjustment. Paragraph 3° of Article 6-2 designates the co-owner on the day the accounts are approved, which produces counter-intuitive effects where the sale takes place a few weeks before the annual general meeting. A clause in the deed may organise an account between the parties, but it does not alter the accounting allocation made by the property manager under the text.

In all cases, the association retains its own levers: the objection under Article 20, I against the price where the certificate dated less than one month earlier has not been produced, and the statutory mortgage of Article 19-1, which a valid objection puts into effect. The institutional creditor registered against the unit, for its part, has an interest in obtaining the information in the first part of the état daté, which the text expressly invites the property manager or the seller to bring to the attention of registered creditors. On the basis, registration and ranking of this security, see our analysis of the special statutory mortgage of the co-ownership association.

Conclusion

The pre-état daté and the état daté do not protect the seller: they document the transaction. What determines the final burden is Article 6-2 of the Decree of 17 March 1967, whose three criteria, the due date of the forecast budget provision, the due date of calls outside the budget, and the date the accounts are approved, never coincide exactly with the date of transfer of ownership. A seller that reasons in terms of pro-rating has the wrong rule; an association that neglects the time limits of Article 20 loses its most effective lever on the price.

The recommendation is to move the handling of these questions upstream of the preliminary agreement. Before any signing, three checks are needed: obtain from the property manager a certificate attesting that the seller is free of any obligation, in order to neutralise the notice of transfer and the objection; obtain the exact wording of the resolutions that voted expenditure outside the forecast budget, with their due dates, and not merely the calls for funds; position the expected date of the deed in relation to that of the annual general meeting approving the accounts, and, if the gap is small, expressly negotiate in the deed the treatment of the adjustment. On a multi-unit operation, these three controls should be industrialised from the moment the marketing file is put together.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between the pre-état daté and the état daté in co-ownership? The pre-état daté corresponds to the documents and information in paragraph II of Article L. 721-2 of the CCH, handed to the purchaser no later than the date the preliminary sale agreement is signed. The état daté falls under Article 5 of the Decree of 17 March 1967: the property manager sends it to the notary instructed to receive the deed, at the request of the notary or of the selling co-owner, before the deed is drawn up. The first informs the purchaser, the second settles the seller's accounting position towards the association. Both are required in a sale of a unit for residential use.

Who pays the forecast budget provision where the sale takes place during a quarter? Paragraph 1° of Article 6-2 of the 1967 Decree places payment of the payable provision of the forecast budget on the seller, pursuant to the third paragraph of I of Article 14-1 of the Law of 10 July 1965. This provision is payable on the first day of each quarter, or on the first day of the period set by the general meeting. The text provides for no pro-rating at the date of transfer of ownership. A different allocation is a matter only for the agreement between the parties, the effect of which as against the association must be checked.

Who bears a works call for funds voted before the sale but payable after it? Paragraph 2° of Article 6-2 of the 1967 Decree places payment of provisions for expenditure not included in the forecast budget on whoever, seller or purchaser, is a co-owner at the time the sum becomes payable. These sums are payable according to the arrangements voted by the general meeting, in accordance with paragraph II of Article 14-1 of the 1965 Law. The date of the vote and the date the works are carried out are therefore irrelevant. The exact wording of the resolution must be consulted to identify the due date.

What does the seller risk if it does not hand over the pre-état daté documents at the preliminary agreement? Article L. 721-3 of the CCH does not provide for nullity of the sale. Where the documents and information in 1° and 2° of II of Article L. 721-2 are not handed over no later than the date the preliminary agreement is signed, the withdrawal period of Article L. 271-1 runs only from the day after their communication to the purchaser. The risk is therefore a risk of timing: the right of withdrawal remains open as long as the handover has not taken place and been proven.

How can the association recover unpaid charges from the sale price? If the seller has not presented to the notary a certificate from the property manager dated less than one month earlier attesting that it is free of any obligation, the notary gives notice of the transfer to the property manager by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt within fifteen days of the transfer of ownership. The property manager may then lodge an objection to the payment of the funds, by extrajudicial instrument, at the chosen address for service, before the expiry of a period of fifteen days from receipt of the notice. The objection must, on pain of nullity, state the amount and the causes of the debt, and include the choice of an address for service within the jurisdiction of the judicial court of the place where the building is located. It amounts, for the benefit of the association, to enforcement of the statutory mortgage referred to in Article 19-1 of the 1965 Law.

Can the sale be blocked if the purchaser is already a debtor co-owner in the building? Yes. Under paragraph II of Article 20 of the Law of 10 July 1965, the notary notifies the property manager of the name of the prospective purchaser and, for a SCI or a general partnership (SNC), those of the corporate officers, the partners and their spouses or PACS partners. The property manager delivers within one month a certificate dated less than one month earlier. If one of those persons is a co-owner of the building and has been the subject of a formal notice to pay that has remained unsuccessful for more than forty-five days, the notary notifies the parties that the sale cannot be concluded; the person concerned has thirty days to pay, failing which the preliminary contract is deemed null and void through its fault.

Who bears the cost of the état daté? Annex 1 of the Decree of 17 March 1967, which sets the standard property manager contract, places services linked to the transfer among the costs and fees chargeable to the individual co-owners alone: the cost is therefore chargeable to the co-owner concerned alone, and not to the association. The amount that may be invoiced for the état daté is subject to a regulatory cap, the applicable text of which must be checked at the date of the service. Annex 1 resulting from Decree No. 2025-1292 of 22 December 2025 applies to property manager contracts concluded after its entry into force and, for contracts in progress, only subject to an amendment introducing the service referred to in 16° bis of VI of Annex 2.