Recovering unpaid co-ownership charges: the property manager's procedure

A single co-owner who stops paying calls for funds is enough to unbalance the whole financial position of the building: the co-ownership association must keep paying the lift contractor, the heating, the insurance and the staff, while part of its income is missing. The property manager (syndic), who manages the co-ownership association (syndicat des copropriétaires), is under an obligation to act to recover these sums, failing which the manager's liability may be engaged. Recovering unpaid co-ownership charges follows a procedure laid down by Law No. 65-557 of 10 July 1965 and its implementing Decree No. 67-223 of 17 March 1967, which combines an amicable reminder, obtaining an enforceable title, property-based security and enforcement measures. This guide sets out each step of the procedure for unpaid co-ownership charges, from the formal notice to seizure, combining the approaches of property law and those of enforcement litigation.

Why unpaid charges engage the property manager's liability

Co-ownership charges fall into two main categories. General charges cover the preservation, upkeep and administration of the common parts; special charges relate to collective services and common equipment (lift, collective heating), apportioned according to the utility each lot derives from them. These charges are voted at the general meeting through the forecast budget (Article 14-1 of the 1965 Law) and, for exceptional works, through specific calls for funds (Article 14-2).

Each co-owner is liable for his share from the due date set by the general meeting, generally the first day of each quarter. Where a co-owner does not pay, the claim belongs to the association, which is a legal entity, and not to the property manager. But it is the property manager who brings the proceedings: Article 55 of the 1967 Decree authorises him to bring legal proceedings on behalf of the association for recovery, without needing prior authorisation from the general meeting where the aim is to recover a debt.

This exemption from authorisation is decisive: it allows a quick reaction. A property manager who allowed the debt to accumulate for years, until it became time-barred, would expose the association to a definitive loss, and his own professional liability could be sought by diligent co-owners, forced to make up the cash shortfall.

Step 1: the amicable reminder and the formal notice

The amicable phase, a useful first step

Before any litigation, the property manager sends one or more reminders to the defaulting co-owner. This amicable phase is not a mere courtesy: it often resolves cases of oversight or temporary difficulty, and it is evidence of diligent management. A co-owner going through a period of unemployment sometimes prefers to negotiate a payment schedule rather than face a seizure; the property manager may accept a repayment plan, provided it is put in writing.

The formal notice, a decisive legal step

The formal notice (mise en demeure) marks the shift to the litigation phase. Sent by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt, it requires the co-owner to pay the sums due within a set period. It has two major legal effects.

First, it causes default interest at the statutory rate to run from its receipt. Second, and above all, it triggers the acceleration mechanism (déchéance du terme) provided for in Article 19-2 of the 1965 Law, in the wording resulting from the ELAN Law No. 2018-1021 of 23 November 2018. This provision states that:

Failing payment of an advance on its due date [...], the other advances [...] not yet due become immediately payable after a formal notice [...] that has remained unsuccessful for more than thirty days.

In other words, if the co-owner does not regularise the position within thirty days of the formal notice, he no longer owes only the unpaid quarter: all the advances under the forecast budget for the current financial year, even those not yet due, together with the sums remaining due for previous financial years, become immediately payable. This acceleration turns a small quarterly debt into a global claim, which considerably strengthens the association's position.

The formal notice must be drafted with precision: the exact amount claimed, the breakdown between arrears and advances yet to fall due, the thirty-day period and a reference to Article 19-2. An imprecise formal notice may be challenged and delay the whole procedure.

Step 2: obtaining an enforceable title

No seizure is possible without an enforceable title. The property manager has three routes to obtain one, to be chosen according to the amount of the claim and the debtor's conduct.

The order for payment

For a claim that is certain, quantified, due and undisputed, the order for payment procedure (injonction de payer), governed by Articles 1405 et seq. of the French Code of Civil Procedure, is the quickest and least costly. The property manager files an application with the judicial court (tribunal judiciaire), accompanied by the statement of charges, the minutes of the general meetings that approved the accounts and the formal notice. The judge rules on the documents, without adversarial debate, and issues an order for payment.

This order is served on the co-owner by a commissaire de justice (bailiff), the new name for the huissier since the merger with the judicial auctioneers,. The debtor has one month in which to lodge an objection. Where there is no objection, the order becomes enforceable and constitutes a title. The drawback: an objection, even a dilatory one, sends the matter to a hearing and loses the benefit of speed.

Proceedings on the merits

Where the claim is likely to be disputed, for example if the co-owner challenges the validity of a general meeting or the apportionment of charges, a summons before the judicial court is necessary. The procedure is adversarial: the two parties exchange their arguments and the judge decides by a judgment which, once served, constitutes the enforceable title. Longer, this route is indispensable where the dispute goes beyond a simple non-payment and touches the substance of co-ownership law.

The accelerated procedure under Article 19-2

Article 19-2 offers a route specific to the recovery of co-ownership charges. Once acceleration has taken effect, the property manager may apply to the president of the judicial court sitting under the accelerated procedure on the merits (procédure accélérée au fond). This procedure makes it possible to obtain quickly a title covering all sums that have become due, including the future advances of the financial year. It illustrates the overlap between property law and litigation: the specific mechanism of the 1965 Law is grafted onto an accelerated procedure of the French Code of Civil Procedure to give the association a responsive tool.

The choice between these three routes depends on a case-by-case analysis: the amount at stake, the presumed solvency of the debtor, and whether there is a dispute. A prudent property manager entrusts this characterisation to a lawyer, all the more so as the fees will ultimately be borne by the defaulting co-owner.

Step 3: the security that protects the association

The co-ownership association benefits from statutory guarantees that secure its claim over the property assets of the defaulting co-owner. This is where the property dimension of recovery comes fully into play.

From the special privilege to the special statutory mortgage

Article 19 of the 1965 Law secures the association's claims by a security directly over the co-owner's lot. Historically characterised as a special real-estate privilege (privilège immobilier spécial), this guarantee was converted into a special statutory mortgage (hypothèque légale spéciale) by Ordinance No. 2021-1192 of 15 September 2021 reforming the law of security, which came into force on 1 January 2022. The substance remains comparable: the association has a real security over the lot, enforceable against third parties and ranking, within certain limits, ahead of other creditors. The base of this security, the claims it secures and its registration are analysed in our article on the special statutory mortgage of the co-ownership association.

This security guarantees payment of the charges and works relating to the current year and the last four years that have fallen due. In practical terms, if the lot is sold or seized, the association will be paid out of the price in preference to other creditors for the charges of that period. The ranking of the security is a decisive issue in a seizure of real property: it determines the order in which creditors will be paid out of the auction price.

The objection to payment of the sale price

Article 20 of the 1965 Law provides a protective mechanism on the transfer of a lot. Where a debtor co-owner sells his property, the notary handling the sale must notify the property manager of the transfer of ownership. The property manager then has a period in which to lodge an objection to the release of funds to the seller, up to the amount of the sums owed.

This mechanism is formidably effective: it allows the association to be paid directly out of the sale price, before the seller has access to it. The notary, who is bound to comply with the objection, retains the corresponding funds and applies them to the payment of the unpaid charges. In practice, a significant share of arrears are settled on a sale, with Article 20 acting as a safety net. For this mechanism to work, the property manager must keep rigorous accounts for each co-owner and be able to produce a precise statement as soon as the notary's notification is received.

This objection must be distinguished from the dated statement (état daté), the document that the notary requests from the property manager before any sale in order to inform the purchaser of the sums owed and of the financial position of the co-ownership. The dated statement reveals the debt; the objection gets it paid.

Step 4: enforcement measures

Armed with an enforceable title, the property manager may have seizures carried out by a commissaire de justice, within the framework of the French Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures. The choice of measure depends on the debtor's assets and income.

Attachment of debts

Attachment of debts (saisie-attribution) targets sums held by a third party on behalf of the debtor, in practice his bank account. The commissaire de justice serves the act on the bank, which must immediately freeze the available sums up to the amount of the claim. This measure has an immediate attributive effect: the sums seized are allocated to the seizing creditor from service, which takes priority over other creditors arising later. A non-seizable bank balance corresponding to the amount of the active solidarity income (revenu de solidarité active) nonetheless remains available to the debtor.

Wage attachment

Where the co-owner is an employee, wage attachment (saisie des rémunérations) makes it possible to deduct a fraction of his salary, within the limits of the scale set by regulation and regularly revalued, which protects a non-seizable portion. This route is suited to debts that the debtor cannot settle in one go but that a monthly deduction will eventually clear.

Seizure and sale of movables

Seizure and sale (saisie-vente) applies to the debtor's tangible movable property (furniture, vehicle). After a demand for payment that has remained unsuccessful, the commissaire de justice draws up an inventory of the assets that can be seized, which will be sold at auction. Its yield is often limited, since everyday items needed for daily life cannot be seized.

Seizure of real property, the last resort

Where the debt is substantial and the other routes ineffective, the association may begin a seizure of real property (saisie immobilière) in respect of the lot, a heavy procedure that ends in the forced sale of the property at auction. It requires an enforceable title, a demand for payment constituting a seizure (commandement de payer valant saisie) published at the land registry (service de la publicité foncière), and then an orientation hearing before the enforcement judge (juge de l'exécution). The proceeds of the sale are distributed among the creditors according to their ranking, the special statutory mortgage of Article 19 giving the association a favourable position for the charges of the last five years. The conditions and stages of this procedure as applied to a co-ownership lot are set out in our article on seizure of real property for unpaid charges.

Seizure of real property is the most radical outcome of the procedure for recovering unpaid co-ownership charges. It fully illustrates the overlap between property law, which bases the security on the lot, and enforcement litigation, which organises its realisation. Its implementation requires a precise strategy, because a procedural error may result in the demand for payment lapsing.

Recovery costs and limitation: two points of vigilance

Costs borne by the defaulting co-owner

Article 10-1 of the 1965 Law places the necessary recovery costs on the defaulting co-owner alone. These include in particular the costs of formal notices from the first registered letter, the costs of reminders and the lawyer's fees incurred for recovery, provided they are justified. This principle is essential: it prevents the body of diligent co-owners from bearing the cost of litigation generated by one. The statement claimed must clearly distinguish the principal, the interest and these ancillary costs.

The limitation period

Article 42 of the 1965 Law sets a five-year limitation period for personal actions arising from the application of the Law between co-owners or between a co-owner and the association. Each call for charges is therefore subject to a five-year limitation period from its due date. A property manager who is slow to act risks seeing the oldest charges become definitively irrecoverable. The formal notice and legal proceedings interrupt the limitation period, hence the value of acting without waiting for arrears to accumulate. The starting point of this period and the acts that interrupt it are examined in our article on limitation of co-ownership charges.

Conclusion

Recovering unpaid co-ownership charges is not a simple administrative reminder: it is a procedural chain in which each link prepares the next. The formal notice triggers the acceleration under Article 19-2 and turns a quarterly arrear into a global claim. The enforceable title, obtained by order for payment, summons or accelerated procedure, opens the door to seizures. The special statutory mortgage of Article 19 and the objection to payment of the sale price under Article 20 anchor the claim to the debtor's property assets, while enforcement measures actually bring about payment. The association's strength lies in this combination of property security and enforcement routes.

The position that emerges is clear: speed comes first. The longer a property manager lets a debt age, the more he exposes the association to the five-year limitation period and to the debtor's insolvency. For a co-owner, the same logic dictates never ignoring a formal notice, on pain of seeing all his advances become payable at once. Before taking any action, have your claim characterised and your statements secured by a property litigation professional: it is the precision of the file, far more than the aggressiveness of the procedure, that determines the success of recovery.

Frequently asked questions

Does the property manager need authorisation from the general meeting to recover unpaid charges?

No. Article 55 of Decree No. 67-223 of 17 March 1967 exempts the property manager from prior authorisation by the general meeting to take action to recover a claim for charges. This exemption is intended to allow quick action against the defaulting co-owner. For other legal actions, however, authorisation remains in principle necessary.

What is the time limit for recovering unpaid co-ownership charges?

The limitation period is five years from the due date of each call for charges, pursuant to Article 42 of Law No. 65-557 of 10 July 1965. After that period, the claim becomes irrecoverable. The formal notice and the bringing of legal proceedings interrupt the limitation period and start a new period running.

What is the acceleration provided for by Article 19-2?

Since the ELAN Law of 23 November 2018, if a co-owner does not pay an advance on its due date and does not regularise the position within thirty days of a formal notice that has remained unsuccessful, all the advances under the forecast budget not yet due become immediately payable. The property manager may then claim the whole financial year at once and apply to the president of the judicial court under the accelerated procedure on the merits.

Does the association's privilege still exist after the reform of security law?

Yes, but in a different form. Ordinance No. 2021-1192 of 15 September 2021, which came into force on 1 January 2022, converted the association's special real-estate privilege into a special statutory mortgage, provided for in Article 19 of the 1965 Law. This security guarantees the charges of the current year and the last four years that have fallen due, and gives the association a favourable ranking on a sale or seizure of the lot.

What happens if the debtor co-owner sells his flat?

Article 20 of the 1965 Law requires the notary to notify the sale to the property manager. The property manager may then lodge an objection to payment of the price to the seller, up to the amount of the sums owed. The notary retains the corresponding funds and pays the unpaid charges before handing the balance to the seller. This mechanism often allows the arrears to be cleared on the transfer.

Are the lawyer's fees for recovery borne by the defaulting co-owner?

Yes, to the extent that they are necessary. Article 10-1 of the 1965 Law places the recovery costs, including lawyer's fees and the costs of formal notices, on the defaulting co-owner alone. The body of co-owners therefore does not have to bear the cost of litigation generated by one debtor, provided that these costs are justified.

Can a co-owner's home be seized for unpaid charges?

Yes, as a last resort. Armed with an enforceable title, the association may begin a seizure of real property in respect of the lot, governed by the French Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures, resulting in a forced sale at auction. The procedure requires a demand for payment constituting a seizure published at the land registry and an orientation hearing before the enforcement judge. This route is reserved for substantial debts where attachments on bank accounts or salary prove insufficient.