.

Off-Market Property Sale: Court Enforces €1 Transfer of a Condominium Swimming Pool

French Court Upholds Sale Agreement Despite Absence of Notarised Deed

Summary of the judgment of the Bordeaux Judicial Court (7th Civil Chamber) – 28 April 2026, No. 22/08711

The Association of Co-owners of [Address 1] (plaintiff) brought proceedings against the Swedish company SCALAB (defendant) to obtain the compulsory execution of a notarised deed of sale for lot no. 575 (a swimming pool and its surroundings) in a residential complex located in [Town 6]. SCALAB, the owner of the plot, had proposed in April 2019 to sell it to the Association for a symbolic €1, subject to the opinion of a property valuer and compliance with the law of [Location 8]. This proposal had been approved at the general meeting of co-owners on 29 June 2019, but the sale had not been finalised. SCALAB subsequently promised to sell the lot to other co-owners in September 2020.

Claims of the parties

• Association of Co-owners:
  • To declare the sale valid (agreement on the subject matter and price, Art. 1583 of the Civil Code).
  • Order the compulsory execution of the authentic deed or, failing that, that the judgment shall take the place of the deed of sale.
  • Order SCALAB to pay €3,000 pursuant to Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure and to pay the costs.
• SCALAB:
  • Contest the existence of a valid agreement: The phrase ‘subject to the opinion of a property valuer’ in its initial proposal would create a condition precedent (Article 1304 of the Civil Code).
  • Seek the nullity of the sale on the grounds of unfair price (€1, Article 1169 of the Civil Code).
  • Claim for damages:
    • €50,000 for loss resulting from the inability to sell the property.
    • €10,000 per year from April 2021 for the use of the swimming pool by the Owners’ Association.
  • Order the Owners’ Association to pay €6,000 (Article 700) and costs.

Court decision

1. On the validity of the sale:
   • The court recognises the validity of the sale (Article 1583 of the Civil Code):
     • Agreement on the subject matter: Lot No. 575 (swimming pool and surrounding area).
     • Agreement on the price: €1, proposed by SCALAB itself.
     • Mutual consent: Evidenced by the favourable vote of the general meeting of 29 June 2019 (a resolution separate from that relating to lot 576, which was rejected).
     • Absence of a condition precedent: The phrase ‘subject to an expert’s opinion’ is not a valid condition, because:
       • It is not specified (subject of the expert assessment, responsible party).
       • It does not legally bind the two resolutions (separate vote).
2. Regarding the claim for nullity on the grounds of a derisory price:
   • Dismissal: The price of €1 is not derisory in view of:
     • The context: The Owners’ Association was already responsible for the management and maintenance of the swimming pool, which is accessible to all co-owners.
     • The location: The swimming pool is situated at the heart of the residential complex and has no independent market value.
3. Measures ordered:
   • Compulsory execution: SCALAB must regularise the authentic deed before a notary within 4 months of the judgment being served.
   • Substitution: Failing this, the judgment shall be deemed a deed of sale and shall be published at the Land Registry.
   • Orders:
     • SCALAB must pay €2,500 to the Association (Article 700).
     • SCALAB shall bear the costs.
   • Provisional enforcement: Rejected due to the nature of the dispute (property sale).

Legal issues

• Boundary agreement in co-ownership: A vote at a general meeting may constitute an irrevocable agreement, even in the absence of a formal signature.
• Condition precedent: A vague statement (e.g. ‘subject to an expert’s report’) does not constitute a valid condition if it is not precise and binding.
• Nominal price: A symbolic price (€1) may be valid if it fits within a coherent economic context (e.g. property with no independent value, management already undertaken by the purchaser).

Summary of the judgment of the La Rochelle Judicial Court (General Civil Litigation) – 7 April 2026, No. 24/02780

Eight co-owners and landlords (including private individuals and the limited liability companies [W] and [O]) brought proceedings against S.A.S. VACANCEOLE DOMAINE DU CHATEAU (the tenant) for:

• The payment of outstanding rent (period: first quarter of 2020 – 28 February 2025).
• The disclosure of accounting documents (income statements, balance sheets, occupancy rates) for the years 2019–2024.
• Damages for unreasonable obstruction (minimum €10,000 per claimant).

The tenant contested the admissibility of the claims (limitation period, lack of distinction) and filed counterclaims for overpayment.

Claims and grounds

• Landlords:
  • Unpaid rent: Calculated on the basis of 40% of accommodation turnover (with a guaranteed minimum per unit) + indexation (construction cost index).
  • Disputed discounts: Certain landlords (e.g. Mr [D]) had agreed to a 15% reduction in 2018–2019, but the tenant is alleged to have improperly extended this to all landlords and continued to apply it after 2019.
  • Duty to provide information: The leases stipulate that the tenant must provide operating accounts, occupancy rates, and significant events (Art. L. 321-2 of the Tourism Code).
• Tenant (VACANCEOLE):
  • Pleas in law:
    • Two-year limitation period (Art. L. 145-60 of the Commercial Code) for rent prior to 2020.
    • Undifferentiated claims (aggregate amounts not itemised by landlord).
    • Lack of standing to sue for Ms [K] and SARL [O] (no proof of ownership).
  • Counterclaims: Overpayment of rent (e.g. €4,998.80 for Mr [J]) due to calculation errors.

Court decision

1. On the points of inadmissibility:
   • Dismissed:
     • Limitation period: The action for payment of rent is subject to the five-year limitation period (Art. 2224 of the Civil Code), not the two-year period (Art. L. 145-60 applies only to specific actions under the Commercial Leases Act, such as rent review).
     • Standing to sue: Ms [K] and SARL [O] have proved their ownership (notarised certificate for SARL [O], lease naming Ms [K]).
     • Separate claims: The amounts claimed are individual (per landlord).
2. Regarding unpaid rent:
   • Partial award:
     • The court applies the 15% reduction only to landlords who signed an addendum (Mr [D], Mr and Mrs [I]).
     • Amounts due (period 2020–February 2025):
       • Mr [J]: €3,463.14
       • Mr [D]: €3,732.93
       • Mr and Mrs [N]: €8,735.42
       • SARL [O]: €16,076.32
       • Mr and Mrs [I]: €9,403.62
       • SARL [W]: €8,171.70
     • Statutory interest from the first quarter of 2020 (due date).
   • Dismissal of counterclaims: The tenant has not proved any overpayment.
3. Regarding the production of documents:
   • Order subject to a penalty payment:
     • The tenant must produce the following within one month:
       • Operating accounts (2019–2024).
       • Balance sheets showing occupancy rates and trends in expenditure/income.
     • Penalty payment: €150 per day of delay (to be determined by the enforcement judge).
4. Regarding damages for unreasonable resistance:
   • Dismissed: The tenant’s resistance is not unreasonable (no proven intent to cause harm).
5. Costs and enforcement:
   • Legal costs: To be borne by VACANCEOLE.
   • Article 700: €3,000 for all landlords (single sum).
   • Provisional enforcement: Uphold (no objection raised).

Legal issues

• Limitation period: Rent is subject to the five-year limitation period (Art. 2224 Civil Code), even in commercial leases.
• Proof of rent reductions: Only rent reductions formalised by a supplementary agreement are enforceable.
• Obligation of transparency: The tenant of a tourist residence must provide detailed accounting documents (Art. L. 321-2 Tourism Code).

Analysis of the judgment of the Nanterre Judicial Court of 21 April 2026

On 21 April 2026, the Nanterre Judicial Court handed down an important decision concerning commercial leases for student accommodation operated under an integrated model.

The dispute was between the company operating a student residence, acting on behalf of ICADE EUROSTUDIOS, and the owners of a studio who had given notice of termination, refusing to renew the lease and offering eviction compensation.

The court was primarily required to rule on two key issues:

• how to assess the eviction compensation owed to the operator of a student residence;
• which method to apply to determine the compensation for continued occupation after the lease expires.

Recognition of the partial loss of business goodwill

The commercial lease concerned a unit located in a centrally managed student residence.

The landlord argued that there was no operational unity between the various units in the residence and that the eviction from a single studio caused only limited damage. The owners cited, in particular:

• the absence of an indivisibility clause;
• the legal autonomy of the co-owners;
• the absence of economic interdependence between the units.

The operating company, on the other hand, argued that the loss of a studio unit resulted in a partial loss of the business operated within the residence. It based its argument on the case law of the Court of Cassation relating to managed residences.

The court adopted a nuanced position.

It refused to recognise the total indivisibility of the residence’s business assets, but clearly acknowledged the existence of a partial loss of the business corresponding to the evicted unit.

This reasoning is significant: the eviction of a single unit does not cause the entire business of the residence to disappear, but it nevertheless causes real commercial damage to the operator.

A valuation method inspired by managed residences

The court-appointed expert had identified two possible methods:

1. a method based on the partial loss of the business assets;
2. a flat-rate method corresponding to six months’ rent.

The court opted for the first approach.

The expert had assessed the loss by calculating the residence’s total turnover and then allocating it per unit to measure the economic loss associated with the evicted studio. This method resulted in a principal compensation payment of €16,166.

The court upheld this reasoning.

The judgment contains a particularly interesting analysis of the student residence management business. The court considers that this activity lies ‘between’ that of a property manager and that of a hotel operator.

The court notes in particular:

• a furnished rental business with services;
• a higher turnover of occupants than in conventional housing;
• limited hotel-style services;
• a leaner staffing structure than a traditional hotel.

This intermediate classification justifies the application of a specific valuation coefficient to the residence’s turnover. The court thus upheld the coefficient of 1.85 adopted by the expert.

Ancillary compensation awarded to the operator

In addition to the main compensation, the court awarded several ancillary payments:

• reinvestment allowance: €1,620;
• business disruption: €446;
• fixed costs: €320;
• removal costs: €150;
• administrative costs: €50.

The court noted that, in cases of eviction, the compensation must cover all the economic consequences of the non-renewal of the lease.

Notably, the court allowed compensation for re-establishment even in the presence of a non-transferable business, unless there was evidence to the contrary demonstrating that the tenant would not re-establish the business in the future.

The total amount of the eviction compensation was finally set at €18,752.

Rejection of indexation of the occupation compensation to the ILC

The landlords also requested that the occupation compensation be indexed in line with the ILC from the date of notice.

The court rejected this request.

The Caen Court of Appeal has confirmed the judicial termination of a Pierre & Vacances commercial lease despite the late settlement of outstanding rent.

A holiday residence facing unpaid rent resulting from the health crisis

In a judgment dated 15 May 2026, the Caen Court of Appeal upheld the judicial termination of a commercial lease entered into between a private investor and the company PV Exploitation France for the operation of a Pierre & Vacances holiday residence.

The case concerned a landlord who, in 2018, had purchased several units in the ‘Presqu’île de la Touques’ holiday residence and had let them under a commercial lease to the operator Pierre & Vacances for a period of ten years. Following the Covid-19 health crisis, the operator suspended rent payments between March and June 2020, then made partial payments and applied various deductions to the rent due in 2020 and 2021.

Faced with persistent arrears, the landlord issued a demand for payment in October 2021 relating to arrears of nearly €20,000. Despite some settlements, the debt was not fully cleared until February 2024. In the meantime, the landlord had taken legal action against PV Exploitation France to seek the judicial termination of the lease and the eviction of the tenant.

The Lisieux District Court granted this application in November 2024, declaring the lease terminated at the tenant’s fault, ordering their eviction and ordering them to pay compensation for occupation until the premises were returned.

The arguments put forward by PV Exploitation France

Before the Court of Appeal, PV Exploitation France argued that the late payments were due to the exceptional consequences of the pandemic and the administrative measures that had affected the tourism sector from spring 2020 onwards. The company also argued that it had initiated conciliation proceedings and opened negotiations with the landlords to restructure the contractual arrangements.

In its view, as the arrears had finally been paid in full on 16 February 2024, no breach serious enough to justify the judicial termination of the lease could yet be established. It therefore sought the setting aside of the judgment and the dismissal of all the landlord’s claims.

The landlord countered that the company had unilaterally ceased paying rent for several years, without demonstrating any persistent financial difficulties and without being able to validly invoke the discussions entered into with certain landlords. He considered that the belated settlement of the debt did not negate the seriousness of the contractual breach committed.

Confirmation of a serious breach justifying the termination of the lease

The Court of Appeal noted that the tenant’s primary obligation is to pay rent on the agreed due dates and that judicial termination may be ordered where a sufficiently serious breach is established.

It noted that, despite the order to pay issued in October 2021, PV Exploitation France did not settle its debt until February 2024, more than two years after the formal notice and well after the end of the main health restrictions. The company did not provide any specific accounting evidence to establish that it was still unable to settle the sums due. On the contrary, it had failed to produce its own balance sheets and profit and loss accounts.

The court also emphasised that the financial reports of the Pierre & Vacances Center Parcs group revealed a rapid recovery in business from 2022 onwards. Following a significant drop in turnover during the crisis, the group had returned to and subsequently exceeded its previous level of activity as early as the 2021–2022 and 2022–2023 financial years.

Finally, the judges point out that the initiation of conciliation proceedings or the conduct of negotiations with certain landlords never had the effect of suspending the payment of rent. These circumstances could not therefore justify the continuation of such significant arrears over such a long period.

Scope of the decision

In view of the size of the rent arrears, the length of the delay in settling them and the lack of any serious financial justification, the court fully upholds the judicial termination of the lease, the eviction of the operator, the compensation for occupation and the orders already made. It further orders PV Exploitation France to pay an additional €2,500 pursuant to Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as well as the costs of the appeal.

This decision once again illustrates the severity with which the courts treat operators of holiday accommodation who have allowed rent arrears to persist for a prolonged period following the health crisis, even where these were eventually settled during the proceedings.

Legal action brought against a landlord following work carried out unilaterally

In a judgment dated 13 May 2026, the Nanterre District Court dismissed all the claims brought by Appart’City against the owner of a unit located in a hotel-style residence operated under the Appart’City brand. This decision provides important insights into the allocation of obligations between the landlord and the operator regarding renovation works in tourist residences.

The dispute concerned a flat acquired by Actual Investissement in a residence operated by Appart’City. The initial commercial lease, entered into in 2008, provided for an annual rent of approximately €8,600 including VAT and placed the responsibility for all tenant-related repairs, as well as all repairs other than major repairs under Article 606 of the Civil Code, on the tenant.

In 2019, Appart’City considered that the property was in a state of disrepair requiring a complete refurbishment. It therefore sent a letter to the landlord estimating the cost of the works at €17,014 including VAT and stating that these would be carried out at its expense. The works were finally carried out in 2020. Having failed to obtain reimbursement of the costs, Appart’City sued the owner for payment.

Appart’City’s argument: the dilapidation is the landlord’s responsibility

To justify its claim, Appart’City argued that the property had been in operation for over ten years and that, in a holiday residence, such a period of operation was sufficient to constitute a state of dilapidation requiring refurbishment. According to the operator, the landlord remained liable for the works made necessary by this dilapidation, which could not be equated with mere tenant repairs.

The company also cited several inspections carried out at the residence, as well as expert reports setting out wear and tear scales applicable to tourist residences. It argued that the renovation of the communal areas decided upon by the co-ownership association also demonstrated the need for a general refurbishment of the establishment.

Finally, Appart’City considered that its letter of 30 August 2019 constituted sufficient formal notice to allow it, on the basis of Article 1222 of the Civil Code, to carry out the works itself and then claim reimbursement from the landlord.

The court ruled out the existence of dilapidation justifying a complete renovation

The court carried out a detailed comparison of two bailiff’s reports drawn up in 2017 and 2019 respectively. It noted that the first report found the flat to be generally in good condition, with the exception of a cracked tile and a carpet showing normal wear and tear. Two years later, only a few minor instances of damage were noted: a damaged bath screen, slightly worn furniture, a broken floor tile or a stained carpet.

In the court’s view, these findings in no way demonstrated the need for a complete renovation of the property. Yet the work carried out by Appart’City went far beyond repairing the observed defects, as it involved the floors, paintwork, electrical systems, plumbing, furniture, household appliances and numerous fixtures.

The judges also emphasised that Appart’City had not provided evidence of regular maintenance of the property, even though the lease required it to bear the cost of tenant repairs as provided for by the decree of 26 August 1987. The invoices submitted did not establish that the operator had in fact carried out this maintenance.

A formal notice deemed non-existent

The central point of the judgment, however, lies in the application of Article 1222 of the Civil Code. This provision allows a creditor, following a formal notice, to have an obligation performed by a third party at the debtor’s expense.

The court considered that the letter sent on 30 August 2019 did not constitute a genuine formal notice. Far from requiring the landlord to carry out the works on pain of legal action, this letter in fact offered him two options: to agree to cover the costs of the works or to enter into a new commercial lease providing for a reduction in rent and a new mechanism for financing the renovations.

The judges concluded that Appart’City had never clearly demanded that the landlord carry out the works nor set a reasonable deadline for compliance. In the absence of prior formal notice or judicial authorisation, the operator could not therefore act in the landlord’s stead and then claim reimbursement of the expenses incurred.

An important decision for managed holiday residences

The court consequently dismissed Appart’City’s claim for reimbursement of €17,014 and also rejected its other claims. This decision serves as a reminder that the operator of a tourist residence cannot rely solely on the age of a property to impose a complete renovation on the landlord. It also confirms that, where work is carried out in the landlord’s stead, strict compliance with the conditions of Article 1222 of the Civil Code remains essential, in particular the existence of a genuine prior formal notice.

Liability of the escrow notary in the sale of a business: negligence found but no damage proven

A business transfer followed by a dispute between the parties

In a judgment of 18 May 2026, the Béziers Judicial Court was called upon to rule on the liability of a notary who had acted as escrow agent for the sale price during a business transfer. The case is of particular interest in that it clearly distinguishes between the existence of fault on the part of the escrow agent and the demonstration of the damage required to obtain compensation.

The dispute arose from the sale, on 8 July 2021, of a driving school business for a price of €35,000. In accordance with the deed of sale, the drafting notary had been instructed to hold the proceeds in escrow and then to distribute them in accordance with legal and contractual provisions.

A few months after the sale, a dispute arose between the purchaser and the seller. The purchaser then sent a letter to the notary on 9 December 2021, informing him of a serious dispute regarding the sale of the business and asking him to retain the funds held in escrow. Despite this dispute, the notary subsequently released the balance of the purchase price to the seller.

Believing that this release had compromised their chances of recovering certain sums owed by the seller, the purchaser brought an action for liability against the notary’s office and claimed €50,000 in damages.

The allegations against the notary acting as escrow agent

The transferee argued that the notary had breached his obligations as escrow agent by releasing the funds despite having been expressly informed of a dispute concerning the transfer. In his view, the existence of this dispute precluded any release of the sums to the transferor without his prior consent.

In the alternative, he also alleged a breach of the duty to provide information and advice. In particular, he criticised the notary for failing to explain sufficiently to him the consequences of an arbitration clause included in the deed of sale, or the steps necessary to preserve his rights to the escrowed price.

To substantiate his claim for damages, the transferee asserted that he had had to bear more than €34,500 in debts and costs that should have been borne by the seller. In his view, the release of the purchase price had resulted in a loss of opportunity to recover these sums from the transferor.

The court finds fault in the management of the escrow

The court first sets out the principles applicable to contractual escrow. Under Articles 1956 and 1960 of the Civil Code, the custodian responsible for an escrow cannot be released from their duties until the dispute is resolved, unless all interested parties agree or there is a legitimate reason.

The deed of assignment did indeed authorise the notary to make certain payments to creditors who had duly lodged an objection. The court therefore considers that the payments made to a secured creditor were in accordance with the contractual provisions.

However, the judges noted that the assignee had sent a letter of objection to the notary on 9 December 2021. This objection was sufficient to establish the existence of a dispute regarding the assignment. Consequently, before any payment of the balance of the price to the vendor, the notary was required to verify that the dispute had been resolved or to obtain the assignee’s consent.

The court further found that the funds had been released to the vendor after this objection had been sent. It concluded that the notary’s office had breached its duty of care and its obligations as a custodian by proceeding with this premature release of funds.

The lack of evidence of loss leads to the dismissal of the claim

Despite this fault, the transferee’s claim fails on the key issue of loss. The court points out that civil liability requires not only a fault, but also proof of actual loss and a direct causal link between the fault and that loss.

However, the claimant produced no supporting documents to establish the payments he claimed to have made, amounting to €34,512.70. Nor did he demonstrate the reality of the loss of opportunity alleged, nor the impossibility of pursuing the assignor directly to obtain reimbursement.

The judges therefore consider that the alleged loss has not been proven. Consequently, despite the breach found against the notary, the claim for compensation is dismissed in its entirety.

Scope of the decision

This decision illustrates a classic yet fundamental rule of liability law: the demonstration of a fault, even a clear one, is not sufficient to obtain compensation. It is also necessary to establish precisely the reality of the loss suffered and its direct link to the alleged fault. The judgment also reiterates that the escrow notary must exercise particular vigilance whenever a dispute affects the transfer of the business, even after the expiry of the time limits for creditors to lodge objections.

A class action lawsuit pitting several landlords against Odalys Résidences

In a judgment dated 22 May 2026, the Toulouse Commercial Court ruled on a dispute involving several owners of units located in a holiday residence operated by the company Odalys Résidences. The landlords were claiming payment of rent that remained unpaid during the 2020 and 2021 financial years following the Covid-19 health crisis.

Between 2012 and 2014, the owners had entered into nine-year commercial leases for various apartments within a holiday residence. During the pandemic, Odalys ceased to pay the full rent stipulated in the contracts, arguing that it could invoke a specific clause in the lease allowing for a reduction in rent in the event of force majeure interrupting tourist activity.

Faced with this situation, the landlords took legal action against the operator to secure payment of rent arrears for the years 2020 and 2021, together with statutory interest.

A contractual clause governing the sharing of force majeure risk

The core of the dispute centred on the interpretation of Article 6 of the commercial leases. This clause provided that, in the event of force majeure interrupting tourist activity, the rent would be reduced to 30% of the net revenue actually received by the tenant and distributed among the landlords in accordance with their respective shares.

The clause specifically covered scenarios such as natural disasters, pollution, administrative barriers to free access to the premises, or restrictions on the movement of people. It specified, however, that this mechanism could not apply where the loss suffered by the tenant was covered by insurance.

The landlords argued that this provision could not justify the reductions made by Odalys. The operator, on the contrary, asserted that the pandemic and the administrative measures adopted by the public authorities fell squarely within the scope of this clause.

The court recognises the applicability of the Covid clause

The court began by validating the very principle of the clause. It noted that no legal provision prohibits the parties from contractually addressing the consequences of a force majeure event on the amount of rent.

The judges then considered that the Covid-19 pandemic and the government measures adopted to combat its spread did indeed constitute a case of force majeure within the meaning of the contract. The successive lockdowns, the administrative closures of holiday accommodation and the travel restrictions had effectively brought tourism to a halt, sometimes completely, sometimes partially.

The court also held that the clause could apply even in the event of only a partial interruption of business. According to the judges, the general structure of the contract revealed an intention on the part of the parties to share the financial consequences of exceptional events affecting the tourism business.

Finally, Odalys demonstrated that no insurance compensation had been received in respect of operating losses linked to the health crisis. The exclusion condition provided for in the lease was therefore not met.

Odalys’ failure to prove revenue received

Odalys’ victory on the principle of the clause does not, however, allow it to escape its liability.

The court emphasised that the contractual mechanism for rent reduction was based exclusively on the “net revenue actually received” by the operator during the periods in question. However, this concept is not to be confused with turnover. A company may invoice for services without having yet received the corresponding sums.

The judges note that Odalys produced evidence relating only to its turnover and not to the revenue actually received during the periods when tourist activity was suspended. This distinction is essential, as the contractual clause referred specifically to actual receipts.

Failing to demonstrate this fundamental condition, Odalys could not benefit from the rent reduction mechanism provided for in the lease. The court therefore considers that the rent must be calculated according to the normal contractual amount.

Order to pay outstanding rent

Having ruled out the practical application of the clause, the court examined the situation of each of the landlords. It found that the amounts claimed corresponded to the outstanding contractual rent and noted that Odalys had not provided any further evidence of the payments it claimed to have made.

The various landlords thus secured an order requiring Odalys to pay the full amount of rent arrears for the 2020 and 2021 financial years, with interest at the statutory rate from the date of the formal notices or, failing that, from the date of the summons.

Scope of the decision

This decision is of particular interest to tourist residences. The court acknowledges that a health risk-sharing clause may be valid and applicable to the Covid crisis. However, it firmly reiterates that an operator invoking such a mechanism must strictly comply with the conditions for its implementation and provide evidence thereof. In the absence of proof of the revenue actually received, the rent reduction becomes unenforceable against the landlords, who regain their right to full payment of the contractual rent.

A typical dispute arising from unpaid rent following the health crisis

By an interim judgment of 4 May 2026, the Bonneville Judicial Court was seized of a new dispute between the owners of a holiday residence and the Pierre & Vacances group. Whilst the court has not yet ruled on the merits of the case, the decision is of significant procedural interest regarding the transfer of commercial leases between companies within the group.

The claimants, owners of a flat and a cellar within a holiday residence operated under the Pierre & Vacances brand, had entered into a guaranteed commercial lease with the company PV Résidences & Resorts France. The lease, signed on 14 January 2021 with retroactive effect from 1 October 2020, provided for a guaranteed annual rent of €12,593 excluding tax.

Believing that the rent had not been paid in full since the health crisis, the landlords took legal action against PV Holding, which had succeeded to the rights of PV Résidences & Resorts France, in order to obtain payment of the outstanding sums.

Over €15,000 in rent claimed by the owners

The owner couple argued that the operator had suspended rent payments between October 2020 and June 2021 and then made irregular payments until October 2024. According to their calculations, after taking into account certain works for which they were liable, a balance of €15,355.92 remained unpaid.

They therefore sought a joint and several order against PV Holding and PV Exploitation France to pay this sum, plus statutory interest from the date of a formal notice sent in December 2023. In the alternative, they sought payment of at least €7,586.16 corresponding to rent remaining unpaid between August 2022 and October 2024.

The landlords relied on the now well-established case law of the Court of Cassation, according to which administrative closures linked to Covid-19 do not constitute either a loss of the leased property within the meaning of Article 1722 of the Civil Code or a breach by the landlord of their obligation to deliver the property. In their view, no suspension of rent was therefore legally justified.

They also contested certain compensation mechanisms applied by the operator in respect of service charges or works, arguing that these deductions were not duly justified.

Pierre & Vacances invokes the transfer of the lease to PV Exploitation France

In response to these claims, the companies of the Pierre & Vacances group developed a two-pronged defence. They first argued that PV Holding could no longer be held liable for payment, as the lease had been transferred to PV Exploitation France following a partial asset transfer agreement signed on 16 December 2020.

According to them, all leases relating to the operation of Pierre & Vacances residences had been transferred to this new company, which had become the sole holder of the rights and obligations arising from the disputed lease.

On the merits, they argued that the rent had been paid in full after offsetting certain charges and works borne by the lessors. They also claimed that the deduction of €7,769.76 corresponded to the periods of administrative closure of the residence during the health crisis, a period during which the obligation to pay rent had been suspended.

The defendant companies thus reiterated the arguments already put forward in numerous Covid-related disputes, based on the partial loss of the leased property, the impossibility of operating the premises and the defence of non-performance.

The court identified a preliminary difficulty: who is actually the tenant under the lease?

Even before examining the issue of unpaid rent, the court noted a fundamental difficulty: the identity of the actual tenant had not been sufficiently established.

The judges noted that the lease did indeed contain a clause authorising its assignment by the tenant under certain conditions. They also noted that the voluntary intervention of PV Exploitation France was admissible.

However, the defendant companies have not produced the partial asset transfer agreement on which they rely. Crucially, the disputed lease was signed in January 2021, i.e. after the date of the agreement in question. The court therefore observes that there is currently no evidence to show that this specific lease was in fact transferred to PV Exploitation France.

The judges also note that the landlords are seeking a joint and several judgment against PV Holding and PV Exploitation France without specifying the exact legal basis for such joint liability.

A reopening of the proceedings before any decision on the rent

Considering that these preliminary issues are decisive for the outcome of the dispute, the court refuses to rule immediately on the financial claims. It orders the proceedings to be reopened and invites PV Exploitation France to produce the partial asset transfer agreement as well as all evidence establishing the transfer of the disputed lease.

At the same time, the lessors are invited to specify the legal basis for their claim for joint and several liability and to explain on what grounds they are also seeking to hold PV Exploitation France liable.

All claims are therefore reserved and the case adjourned to a later hearing. This decision illustrates the importance, in disputes concerning holiday residences, of verifying precisely the transfer of commercial leases during internal restructuring of operating groups before addressing the issue of rent payments.

Covid-19 and holiday let rents: the Rennes Court of Appeal orders operator HMC to pay all outstanding rent.

A new ruling in favour of tourist accommodation landlords

In a judgment of 13 May 2026, the Rennes Court of Appeal overturned an interim order issued by the Quimper Judicial Court and ordered HMC, the operator of a holiday residence, to pay the landlords an advance payment corresponding to the full amount of rent unpaid during 2020 and 2021. This decision follows on from the now well-established case law concerning the consequences of the health crisis on commercial leases for holiday residences.

The case concerned several investors who owned properties in a holiday residence operated by HMC. Following the Covid-19 pandemic and government measures restricting travel, the operator had announced as early as July 2020 that it would pay only 50% of the rent due for the first half of 2020. The landlords then suffered rent deductions for several years which they considered unjustified.

After several unsuccessful attempts at amicable resolution, the owners served formal notice on HMC to pay the full amount of rent and charges still due before bringing the matter before the court for interim relief.

The interim judge’s refusal to order the operator to pay

At first instance, the judge in summary proceedings had refused to grant a provisional order for the unpaid rent. He had considered that the objections raised by HMC precluded the granting of a provisional order. However, he had awarded the landlords reimbursement of certain household waste collection charges for the years 2020 and 2021.

The landlords appealed against this decision, arguing that the arguments put forward by HMC were now contrary to established case law of the Court of Cassation and the courts of appeal. In their view, the rent remained due in full despite the health crisis, and no serious objection could justify the rejection of their claims.

They therefore claimed payment of rent arrears for each of their units, as well as damages for wrongful refusal to pay.

The operator’s arguments based on the health crisis

In an attempt to avoid paying rent, HMC argued that the government measures adopted during the pandemic had rendered the lease void. According to the operator, the temporary ban on hosting tourist guests had made it impossible to operate the residence normally, meaning that its obligation to pay rent should be suspended.

The company argued that travel restrictions and limitations on public access had had the same effect as an administrative closure. It also contended that the amounts claimed by the landlords remained open to question and that there was still serious dispute regarding the exact calculation of the sums due.

HMC therefore sought full confirmation of the order refusing any advance payment of rent.

The Court of Appeal rejects the theory of the cause of action having lapsed

The Rennes Court firmly dismissed the main argument put forward by the operator. It noted that the basis for the obligation to pay rent lies in the landlord making the premises available. However, the premises remained available to the tenant throughout the entire period in question.

The judges emphasised that the operator retained control of the premises at all times, including during periods when certain restrictions affected public access. The disruption cited by HMC did not result from a breach by the landlords but exclusively from the general measures decided by the public authorities to combat the epidemic.

The court also reiterated a fundamental principle regarding commercial leases: the landlord is not obliged to guarantee the marketability of the leased premises unless specifically stipulated in the contract. The economic difficulties faced by the operator due to the decline in tourist numbers cannot therefore be attributed to the landlords.

A provisional order to pay rent

Having dismissed HMC’s objections, the court noted that the landlords had produced the commercial leases, rent invoices and detailed summary tables enabling the sums due to be determined precisely. Conversely, the operator provided no accounting records or supporting documents capable of seriously calling these calculations into question.

The court therefore ruled that the obligation to pay was not seriously contestable within the meaning of Article 835 of the Code of Civil Procedure and ordered HMC to pay, on a provisional basis:

• €6,229.69 to a first landlord;
• €8,618.15 to a second;
• €7,553.25 to a couple of landlords;
• €6,229.60 to a fourth investor.

Statutory interest and its capitalisation are also awarded.

An important decision for investors

The court, however, upheld the dismissal of claims for damages for unreasonable resistance, finding that the landlords had failed to demonstrate either specific bad faith on the part of the operator or any loss distinct from the unpaid rent.

This ruling nevertheless constitutes another significant victory for owners of holiday residences. It confirms that operators can no longer successfully invoke the health crisis to justify unilateral rent withholdings several years after the events. Above all, the decision serves as a reminder that operational difficulties linked to Covid-19 do not call into question the tenant’s fundamental obligation to pay rent when the premises have remained at their disposal.

Appart’City’s claim for reimbursement of renovation costs at a holiday residence has been dismissed.

Background to the dispute

In a judgment dated 13 May 2026, the Nanterre District Court dismissed the claim brought by Appart’City, which sought reimbursement of €20,452 for renovation work carried out in a flat operated within a tourist residence. The proceedings pitted the operator against a property owner who had let her property under a commercial lease in 2010.

The lease, entered into for a term of eleven and a half years, covered a flat within a hotel-style residence operated by Appart’City. After nearly ten years of operation, the operator considered that the property was in a state of disrepair incompatible with the standards expected of the residence and undertook an extensive renovation programme.

In September 2019, Appart’City sent the owner a letter stating that renovation work was necessary and estimated to cost €20,452 including VAT. The work was eventually carried out and invoiced to the lessor, who refused to pay. The operator then brought legal proceedings to obtain reimbursement of this sum.

The arguments put forward by Appart’City

The operator argued that the dilapidated state of the property was the result of the intensive use typical of tourist residences. In its view, after nine years of continuous occupation, the property was no longer fit for its commercial purpose and required a complete refurbishment.

Appart’City invoked the landlord’s legal obligations to deliver and maintain the premises in a condition fit for the agreed use. The operator considered that it had regularly alerted the owner to the condition of the property in a letter dated 3 September 2019, which it regarded as a formal notice.

The company also argued that Article 1222 of the Civil Code allowed it, following a formal notice that had remained without effect, to carry out the necessary works itself and then claim reimbursement from the owner. Finally, it contended that the need to renovate the residence had been collectively acknowledged by the co-owners at a general meeting.

The landlord’s objection

The owner contested both the necessity and the extent of the work carried out. She emphasised that the lease placed the responsibility for routine maintenance, tenant repairs and all repairs other than major repairs under Article 606 of the Civil Code on the tenant.

She pointed out that the defects noted in the bailiff’s report of 2019 were essentially limited to stained carpets, a few scratches, lack of cleanliness and various minor damages. In her view, these findings could not justify a complete renovation of the property.

The defendant also argued that the works had been imposed without her consent, whereas the lease expressly provided that works affecting the private areas must be decided jointly by the landlord and the tenant.

The court’s analysis

The court first noted that the commercial lease remains applicable and that there is no serious evidence to call this contractual classification into question. However, this issue was deemed to have no bearing on the main dispute.

The judges then examined the bailiff’s findings from 2019. They observed that the defects noted mainly concerned minor damage: stained carpets, marked furniture, worn seals, faded paintwork or minor maintenance issues.

Yet the work actually carried out went far beyond simple repairs. Appart’City undertook a virtually complete refurbishment of the property, including in particular the replacement of floors, paintwork, sanitary fittings, the kitchen, furniture, electrical appliances, lighting, ventilation and numerous new fixtures.

The court found that the evidence submitted did not demonstrate that such a comprehensive renovation was necessitated solely by the dilapidated state of the property. It also emphasised that Appart’City had not sufficiently demonstrated that it had fulfilled the routine maintenance obligations imposed on it by the lease.

The absence of a formal notice

One of the key points of the judgment concerns the application of Article 1222 of the Civil Code.

The court notes that a creditor may only carry out the works themselves and claim reimbursement for them after issuing a proper formal notice to the debtor. This formal notice must be explicit, specify the alleged breaches of obligation and set a deadline for remedying them.

However, the letter of 3 September 2019 did not have this effect. The judges noted that it essentially offered the landlord two options: to finance the works or to enter into a new commercial lease providing for a specific renovation mechanism and a reduction in rent. The document did not clearly express the intention to seek legal enforcement of the works in the event of refusal.

Consequently, no valid formal notice had been served on the landlord prior to the works being carried out. Appart’City could not therefore unilaterally act in the landlord’s stead.

The ruling

The court dismissed Appart’City’s claim for reimbursement of the €20,452 in renovation costs in its entirety. It ruled that the operator had failed to demonstrate either the necessity of a full renovation of the property or compliance with the legal conditions allowing it to act in the landlord’s stead.

This decision is of particular interest to landlords of tourist accommodation. It serves as a reminder that an operator cannot unilaterally impose major renovation programmes on landlords without demonstrating precisely their necessity and without strictly adhering to the procedures set out in the lease and in Article 1222 of the Civil Code.