Getting out of an inheritance dispute: what solutions are there when an inheritance is blocked?

Ending joint ownership of an inherited property becomes necessary when disagreements among the heirs prevent the sale of an asset, the organization of its division, or simply its normal management. After a death, heirs may find themselves jointly owning a house, an apartment, investments, or even company shares. This situation, often temporary in theory, can last for several years when an heir refuses to sell, stops responding, occupies a property alone, or disputes the accounts.

Key takeaway:
Article 815 of the French Civil Code establishes a fundamental principle: "No one can be compelled to remain in joint ownership." However, resolving joint ownership of an inherited property can take many different forms. Before initiating any proceedings, it is necessary to determine each party's rights, assess the value of the assets, establish the joint ownership accounts, and find the solution that best serves the interests of all the heirs.

1. Why does an inheritance place the heirs in joint ownership?

When a person dies leaving several heirs, the estate belongs to them collectively until it is divided. Each heir does not physically own a room in the family home, a specific portion of land, or certain securities from the deceased's portfolio. They hold an abstract share of the undivided whole, corresponding to their rights in the inheritance.

This situation can affect very different types of assets:

• a primary or secondary residence;
• a rental property;
• land;
• bank accounts or a securities portfolio;
• furniture or works of art;
• shares in SCI;
• shares or units of an operating company;
• certain professional assets.

Joint ownership is not necessarily conflictual. It can allow heirs to temporarily retain an asset, organize its sale, or prepare its distribution. However, it becomes problematic when no lasting decision can be made, when expenses accumulate, or when the heirs' personal interests diverge.

The difficulty does not always stem from an outright refusal to end an inheritance dispute. A deadlock can result from an heir's lack of response, a disagreement over the price of a property, one of the co-owners' inability to finance a balancing payment, exclusive use of the property, or accounts that have remained unaccounted for for several years.

It is generally at this stage that the question of exiting an inheritance joint ownership arises in concrete terms.

2. Can one be forced to remain in joint ownership before exiting an inheritance joint ownership?

The principle is stated inArticle 815 of the Civil Code : no one can be forced to remain in joint ownership and partition can always be initiated, except when it has been suspended by judgment or agreement.

Any co-owner can therefore request the termination of the joint ownership and thus withdraw from an inheritance joint ownership, regardless of the size of their share. An heir holding 10% of the rights is not legally obligated to remain a co-owner with the others simply because they wish to retain the property.

This principle does not, however, mean that the heir can unilaterally choose how the joint ownership will end. They cannot, by their own will, impose a price on the others, allocate a specific asset to themselves, or sell jointly owned property to the buyer of their choice. In the absence of an agreement, the terms of the exit must be determined within the framework of the mechanisms provided by law and, if necessary, by the court.

The division of the estate can also be temporarily deferred. Maintaining joint ownership can result from an agreement between the heirs. In certain circumstances, the court can also postpone the division, particularly when its immediate implementation risks diminishing the value of the jointly owned assets. Finally, there are so-called "forced" joint ownerships, attached to assets essential for common use, but these are unrelated to most of the inheritance-related joint ownerships considered here. These exceptions do not call into question the principle: ordinary inheritance-related joint ownership is not intended to become a situation of perpetual deadlock.

3. Why is it necessary to establish a diagnosis before choosing a procedure?

The phrase "exiting joint ownership" actually encompasses several objectives. An heir may wish to:

• sell an asset and share the price;
• retain ownership of the property by buying out the rights of others;
• to receive certain assets in their share and leave the other assets to the co-heirs;
• to transfer only one's own undivided rights;
• to obtain settlement of accounts before any distribution;
• to end the exclusive occupation of a property;
• to trigger a global division of the inheritance;
• to quickly protect an asset that is deteriorating or at risk of losing its value.

The strategy also depends on the composition of the estate. An estate consisting of only an apartment does not require the same treatment as an estate composed of several buildings, previous gifts, debts between the deceased and his children, or shares in a family business.

Before taking any action, it is therefore necessary to examine, in particular:

1. the identity and rights of each of the heirs;
2. the existence of a will, prior donations or a matrimonial property regime to be liquidated;
3. the consistency and value of the heritage;
4. the debts of the estate and the undivided ownership;
5. expenses paid personally by certain heirs;
6. the income generated by jointly owned property;
7. the conditions of occupancy of the buildings;
8. the actions already carried out by the notary;
9. points of agreement and disagreement;
10. the possible urgency of a sale or a precautionary measure.

Taking action too quickly, without a sufficiently precise inventory or a concrete proposal for sharing the costs, can simply shift the conflict without resolving it. Conversely, endless negotiations can increase expenses, allow a building to deteriorate, or cause evidence crucial to the accounting to disappear.

4. The first approach: reaching an amicable agreement

The simplest way to get out of an inheritance dispute remains an amicable division.

When the heirs agree on the principle and the terms of the distribution, amicable division is generally the quickest and most manageable solution to get out of an inheritance joint ownership.

The division of an estate allocates to each heir assets of a value corresponding to their rights. When the shares cannot be made equal, the heir who receives more may pay the others a sum called a balancing payment.

Several scenarios are possible.

4.1. Sell the property and distribute the proceeds

The heirs can jointly decide to sell an undivided property. After payment of debts, costs and sums due under the joint ownership accounts, the net price is divided according to each heir's rights.

This solution requires agreement not only on the sale itself, but also on the price, the choice of intermediary, the terms of the offer, and the distribution of the proceeds. Therefore, an agreement on the principle of selling is not always enough to avoid conflict.

4.2. Allocate the property to an heir in exchange for payment of a balancing sum

One of the heirs may wish to keep the family home, a rental property, or shares in a company. The property is then allocated to them, with the obligation to compensate the others in proportion to their respective shares.

This operation requires:

• a reliable valuation of the property;
• a calculation of each person's rights;
• the integration of receivables and debts between the heirs and the undivided ownership;
• the ability of the recipient to finance the compensation payment;
• the processing of any loan possibly attached to the property;
• the establishment of the deed of partition and the settlement of its tax consequences.

4.3. Compose multiple batches

When the estate is diversified, the heirs can divide the assets: a property for one, investments or securities for another, possibly with the payment of compensation. This solution sometimes avoids a forced sale and allows everyone's plans to be taken into account.

However, it requires a comprehensive view of the assets to be divided. A piecemeal discussion, without an overall statement of account, frequently leads to partial agreements that are impossible to finalize.

4.4. Temporarily maintain joint ownership

The heirs can also enter into a joint ownership agreement to organize the management, the sharing of expenses, the use of assets, and the distribution of income. This agreement does not constitute a termination of the joint ownership of the inherited property; it merely makes it bearable for a specific period or pending an event, such as the future sale of the property.

It can be relevant when an immediate sale would be unfavorable or when an heir needs time to finance the purchase of the other heirs' rights. However, it must avoid postponing an existing conflict without addressing its underlying causes.

5. Can an heir sell their undivided rights?

Each heir can, in principle, transfer their own rights in the undivided ownership without selling the property itself. This possibility should be distinguished from the division and sale of the undivided assets.

The transfer can be made to another heir, which is sometimes an effective solution: one leaves the joint ownership while another increases his share with a view to a later allocation.

Selling to someone outside the joint ownership is legally possible but subject to certain conditions. Article 815-14 of the French Civil Code requires the seller to notify the other joint owners of the price and terms of the proposed sale, as well as the identity of the buyer. The other joint owners have a right of first refusal.

In practice, the market value of undivided shares may be less than the purely mathematical fraction of the property's value. The buyer is not purchasing an immediately available asset; they are entering into joint ownership and bear the associated uncertainties. Therefore, a sale to a third party should be considered only after comparison with other exit strategies.

6. What to do when an heir refuses to sell or divide the estate?

The refusal of a co-heir does not therefore preclude all steps to end an inheritance dispute. Several mechanisms can be considered, depending on the desired outcome.

6.1. Seeking a formalized agreement

A useful negotiation is not simply a matter of asking the opposing heir if they agree to "withdraw from the joint ownership." It must be based on a detailed and documented proposal:

• value retained for each asset;
• statement of debts and liabilities;
• possible occupancy compensation;
• conservation or improvement expenses;
• income received;
• lots offered;
• amount and financing of a possible cash payment;
• implementation schedule.

Legal counsel can help distinguish a legal disagreement from a personal conflict, identify the true sticking points, and negotiate a comprehensive agreement. Even when legal proceedings seem unavoidable, a thorough amicable phase remains essential: the summons for partition must specify the steps taken to reach an amicable settlement.

6.2. Dealing with an unresponsive heir

A silent heir should not be confused with one who expressly refuses to participate in the division of the estate. When a co-owner is in default, they can be formally notified, by extrajudicial means, to be represented at the amicable division of the estate.

If no representative is appointed within the statutory time limit, the judge may appoint a qualified person to represent the defaulting co-owner until the amicable partition is completed, in accordance with the provisions of Article 837 of the Civil Code. This mechanism can prevent a simple silence from rendering any amicable partition impossible.

Specific rules also apply when an heir is presumed absent, absent, or unable to express their wishes. The choice of procedure therefore depends on the exact reason for the lack of participation.

This representation in the context of an amicable division must be distinguished from the old mechanism of article 841-1 of the Civil Code, applicable during a judicial division and repealed by the law of April 7, 2026.

6.3. Requesting permission to carry out a necessary act alone

Article 815-5 of the Civil Code allows a co-owner to be authorized by the court to carry out an act alone for which the agreement of another would be necessary, when the refusal of the latter jeopardizes the common interest.

This procedure is not the same as the general right to request partition. It addresses a situation in which the refusal jeopardizes the interests of the joint ownership, for example when a specific action must be taken to preserve the value of the assets.

An important procedural point should be noted: unlike Article 815-6, Article 815-5 is not covered by Article 1380 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application falls, in principle, under the jurisdiction of the judicial court ruling on the merits. The summary proceedings judge can only intervene if the general conditions for summary proceedings are themselves met; the mere reference to Article 815-5 is insufficient to grant them jurisdiction.

6.4. Requesting urgent action in the common interest

Since April 9, 2026, Article 815-6 of the Civil Code expressly specifies that the president of the judicial court, who can prescribe or authorize urgent measures required by the common interest, can also authorize a co-owner to conclude alone a deed of sale of an undivided property.

This amendment, stemming from Law No. 2026-248 of April 7, 2026, enshrines in law a right previously recognized by case law. However, it does not create an automatic right to sell without the consent of the other co-owners: the applicant must demonstrate both urgency and a shared interest. The choice of this procedure therefore depends closely on the circumstances, such as the deterioration of the property, the burden of expenses, an immediate financial risk, or the existence of an offer whose loss would be detrimental to the co-ownership.

The application based on Article 815-6 is brought before the president of the judicial court, who rules according to the expedited procedure on the merits pursuant to Article 1380 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This procedure must therefore be carefully distinguished from the action based on Article 815-5.

6.5. Request the sale at the initiative of the holders of at least two-thirds of the rights

Article 815-5-1 of the Civil Code provides for a special procedure when the co-owner(s) wishing to sell hold at least two-thirds of the undivided rights.

Their intention is expressed before a notary and then notified to the other co-owners. In the event of objection or no response within the prescribed period, the court may authorize the sale if it does not unduly infringe upon the rights of the other co-owners. The sale then takes place by auction.

This procedure should not be confused with the ordinary powers attached to a two-thirds majority. Under Article 815-3 of the Civil Code, this majority allows, in particular, the performance of certain administrative acts, but the sale of real estate remains, in principle, an act of disposition requiring unanimity, except through an appropriate judicial mechanism.

The route of article 815-5-1 is also excluded in certain protected situations, in particular when the division of property rights requires the agreement of the usufructuary to the sale of full ownership.

The law of April 7, 2026 did not modify this general provision of article 815-5-1. Its article 6 created a similar mechanism, but specific to certain undivided real estate located in Corsica and governed by the law of March 6, 2017. The two regimes should not be confused.

6.6. Three judicial mechanisms not to be confused

In practice, the choice of legal action can be summarized as follows:

• Article 815-5 : to authorize on a case-by-case basis a co-owner to carry out an act alone when the refusal of another jeopardizes the common interest; the request falls in principle under the jurisdiction of the judicial court ruling on the merits;
• Article 815-6 : to obtain quickly an urgent measure required by the common interest, including, since April 2026, the authorization to conclude alone the sale of an undivided property; the president decides according to the accelerated procedure on the merits;
• Article 815-5-1 : to obtain judicial authorization for the alienation of property at the initiative of the co-owners holding at least two-thirds of the rights, after completion of the notarial procedure provided for by the text.

These mechanisms are subject to different conditions, objectives, and procedural rules. An error in the legal basis or in the judgment may render the application inadmissible and further delay the dissolution of the joint ownership.

7. Exiting joint ownership of an inheritance through judicial partition

Judicial partition becomes necessary when a co-owner refuses amicable partition, when disputes prevent the terms from being agreed upon, or when the complexity of the operations requires the intervention of a judge.

Since the law of April 7, 2026, Article 840 of the Civil Code has extended the scope of judicial partition to include claims for the liquidation, division, and settlement of jointly owned property, as well as the settlement of the financial interests of spouses, civil partners, and cohabiting partners. Certain claims can now be brought in court even in the absence of joint ownership between the parties or when joint ownership ceases during the proceedings, if the complexity of the liquidation process so requires. For jointly owned inherited property, the court in the jurisdiction where the estate was opened retains jurisdiction over partition actions and related disputes.

7.1. The assignment cannot be improvised

On pain of inadmissibility, the summons for partition must include:

• a brief description of the heritage to be shared;
• the applicant's intentions regarding the distribution of assets;
• the steps taken to reach an amicable settlement.

It is therefore insufficient to simply ask the court to "unblock the estate." The case must present the assets, the respective positions of the parties, and a prospect of settlement.

7.2. The procedure depends on the complexity of the case

When the operations are simple, the court can order the division and deal with the difficulties submitted to it.

When the complexity of the matter warrants it, the notary appoints a notary to handle the division of assets and assigns a judge to oversee it. The notary summons the parties, gathers the necessary documents, prepares the accounts, and drafts a statement of liquidation. The notary may, when the nature or value of the assets justifies it, consult an expert.

If the heirs remain in disagreement, the notary submits a report to the judge outlining the parties' positions and the draft statement of account. The court then decides on the points of contention, approves the statement of account, or refers the parties back to the notary to draw up the deed recording the division of the estate.

The 2026 reform also amended Article 841 of the Civil Code: the appointed judge must be able to hear disputes arising during the proceedings and order the auction. However, the text refers to a decree issued by the Council of State to define the conditions for exercising these new powers. Until this regulatory framework is established, caution is advised regarding their practical implementation. The same law repealed Article 841-1, which previously governed the representation of an inactive co-owner during legal proceedings.

7.3. Auctioning may become inevitable

When property cannot be conveniently divided or allocated to an heir under acceptable conditions, its sale may be ordered. A public auction is a sale that converts the undivided property into a price that can then be distributed.

It can be a necessary solution, but it is neither automatic upon the emergence of a disagreement nor always economically optimal. Before ordering it, the judge must assess, in particular, whether the assets can be conveniently divided or distributed in kind. The outcome of a judicial sale, its timing, costs, and the uncertainty surrounding the price must be compared with negotiated solutions. The prospect of a public auction can also encourage an agreement on an amicable sale or on the buyout of the rights of certain heirs.

8. Sharing is not enough: the accounts of the joint ownership must also be settled

An inheritance may remain blocked not because the heirs refuse the principle of division, but because they dispute the amounts to be included in the accounts.

The main difficulties concern:

• the compensation owed by the heir who occupies a building exclusively;
• rents collected by a single co-owner;
• loan repayments made after death;
• property tax, condominium fees and insurance;
• the expenses necessary for the preservation of the property;
• improvement work carried out by an heir;
• the damage attributed to the occupant;
• advances made to the estate;
• the fruits and income produced by the undivided assets.

Occupying jointly owned property does not automatically entitle one to compensation in all circumstances. According to Article 815-9 of the French Civil Code, a co-owner who uses or enjoys the jointly owned property exclusively is, unless otherwise agreed, liable to pay compensation. However, it is still necessary to define the exclusive use, determine its duration, and assess the amount of compensation.

Similarly, the person who financed the work does not necessarily receive full reimbursement for every single invoice. The nature of the expenses, their necessity, the improvement made to the property, and proof of payment must all be examined.

The preparation of the file is therefore crucial. Bank statements, invoices, property tax notices, receipts, leases, property appraisals, correspondence between heirs and proof of occupancy must be gathered as early as possible.

9. What are the respective roles of the notary and the lawyer?

The notary plays a central role in settling an estate. He identifies the heirs, draws up the necessary documents, gathers the assets, carries out tax formalities, and receives the distribution when it requires a notarial act, particularly when real estate is involved.

The lawyer intervenes in a complementary role when interests diverge or when a strategy needs to be developed. Specifically, they can:

• analyze the rights of the heir and the operations already carried out;
• to reconstruct the accounts of the joint ownership;
• to assess opposing claims;
• organize a negotiation and formalize an agreement;
• to articulate the legal solution with the real estate or corporate issues;
• to issue a formal notice to a defaulting or opposing heir;
• to initiate a request for judicial authorization;
• to introduce and conduct the action in sharing;
• monitor the proceedings before the appointed notary and formulate any necessary objections;
• to defend the heir during the determination of accounts, the allocation of assets or a sale by auction.

In complex cases, cooperation between the notary, the lawyer, the real estate expert, the accountant and, when a company is involved, the company's usual advisors helps to prevent an inheritance issue from being treated in isolation from its financial and professional consequences.

10. What documents are needed to unlock an inheritance?

Before a consultation or negotiation, it is useful to gather:

• the death certificate and the affidavit of notoriety;
• the will and known donations;
• deeds of ownership;
• the statement of assets established by the notary;
• the inheritance tax return, if it has been filed;
• valuations or appraisals of the assets;
• statements of accounts for the estate and the undivided ownership;
• loans and amortization schedules;
• supporting documents for expenses paid by each heir;
• leases, receipts and rent statements;
• supporting documents relating to the occupancy of the buildings;
• the exchanges that took place between the heirs and with the notary;
• the division plans or liquidation statements already established;
• For a company, the articles of association, shareholders' agreements, financial statements and elements of securities valuation.

This documentation makes it possible to move from a conflict often expressed in personal terms to a structured legal and financial analysis.

Conclusion

Getting out of an inheritance joint ownership situation requires identifying the solution that corresponds to the exact nature of the blockage.

A blocked joint ownership of an inheritance is not a hopeless situation. The right to request partition remains the principle, but the appropriate solution varies depending on the composition of the estate, the rights held, the nature of the blockage, the urgency, and the objectives of each heir.

Amicable division of property, sale of the property, allocation with compensation, transfer of undivided rights, representation of a defaulting heir, judicial authorization to sell, and judicial partition are not interchangeable methods. Their effectiveness depends on the quality of the initial assessment, the preparation of accounts, and the development of a strategy.

Seeking an agreement should be prioritized when it can be reached within a reasonable timeframe. However, it should not become a pretext for inaction: when expenses accumulate, when assets deteriorate, or when an heir uses silence or refusal to maintain the deadlock, legal action may be necessary.

Is an inheritance still blocked?

This is often a situation at the crossroads of several branches of law, including personal law, real estate law, and even business law.

ARST Avocats assists heirs wishing to exit an inheritance dispute, through negotiation or legal proceedings. The firm works in coordination with the notary handling the estate and other relevant professionals.