Newsletter n° 20 – Real estate law
REGULATIONS
Rental value of professional premises
Decree of April 3, 2015
~
Energy renovation of housing
Decree of March 17, 2015
~
Commercial development
Decree of March 27, 2015
JURISPRUDENCE
I. Co
24, 2015 Unenforceability of banking secrecy by the trustee against the syndicate of co-owners
… of March 17, 2015
Modalities for sharing joint ownership
II.
Procedure … of March 19, 2015 Expiry of the order to pay
REGULATIONS
RENTAL VALUE OF PROFESSIONAL PREMISES
The rental value of professional premises had been assessed since 1970 according to cadastral rules referring to a typical premises.
In 2010, the legislator wished to update these rental values and set up a system for the permanent updating of rental values. This mechanism, provided for by article 1498 bis of the General Tax Code (CGI), created by the amending finance law for 2010 (Art. 34 M of law no. 2010-1658 of December 29, 2010) and effective for the first time in 2015, is based on a declaration by the operators of business premises of the amount of rent they pay. All operators of professional premises are concerned.
A decree of April 3, 2015 specifies that taxpayers subject to this obligation must declare, for each premises of which they are tenants on January 1 of the year in which the declaration is filed, the amount of the annual rent, charges and taxes not included, for the year in which the declaration is filed.
The declaration of rent must be made at the same time as the declarations of results. Nevertheless, for this first campaign, the administration admits that this declaration can be made until September 15, 2015.
HOUSING RENOVATION
The decree of March 17, 20151 specifies the scope and methods of implementing third-party financing services for carrying out energy renovation work in housing or apartment buildings. It also determines the work that can be financed as well as the services that must be included in the technical and financial offers.
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
As part of the reform of commercial development carried out by the ALUR law (law no. ° 2014-626 of June 18, 2014), an order of March 27, 2015 is issued for the application of the commercial development reform. It repeals several provisions relating to departmental commercial development observatories, namely Articles A. 751-1 to A. 751-12 of the Commercial Code and the decree of November 13, 2009 taken for the application of Articles R. 751 -13 and R. 751-17 of the Commercial Code.
JURISPRUDENCE
Unenforceability of banking secrecy by the trustee against the syndicate of co-owners
Com. March 24, 2015 (n°13-22.597) F-PB:
In this case, a trustee had opened an account in a bank, which had transmitted information relating to the operation of this account to the president of the union council.
The trustee then sued the bank to see it engage its civil liability insofar as, according to him, it had violated banking secrecy. The Court of Appeal considered that banking secrecy did not prohibit the bank from informing the union council of the union of the error made by its trustee who deposited the funds relating to the management of the co-ownership, not on a individualized account, as provided for in article 18 of the law of July 10, 1965, but on a sub-account belonging to it and of which the trustee was the sole holder. The Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal filed by the trustee. In support of its decision, the Court specified that the disputed account, whose title made it possible to identify the co-ownership concerned, was not a separate account within the meaning of article 18 of the law of July 10, 1965, exclusively recorded the management operations of the co-ownership of the residence, from which it follows that banking secrecy did not preclude the communication, to the syndicate, of information on the operation of this account.
1 Decree No. 2015-306 of March 17, 2015 specifying the scope of third-party financing services for carrying out energy renovation work in housing
Modalities of sharing an indivision
3rd Civil. April 1, 2015 (No. 14-14.349) FS-PB:
After the divorce of two spouses, who had adopted the regime of separation of property, difficulties arose for the liquidation and division of an undivided building between them.
The husband had objected to the judgment of appeal to say that there were no claims for his benefit in respect of the financing of the undivided building, the balance of the sale price of this property having to be shared between the spouses according to the share held by each of them resulting from the deed of acquisition. In this case, the Court of Cassation confirms the decision of the Court of Appeal. She had first noted that the spouses had agreed, by a clause in their marriage contract, that each of them would be deemed to have paid day by day their contributory share of the marriage expenses. She deduced from this that it was apparent from the will of the spouses that this presumption prohibited the proof that one or the other of the spouses had not discharged their obligation. The court then noted that the undivided building constituted the marital home, the regulations relating to this acquisition, operated by the husband, therefore participated in the execution of his obligation to contribute to the expenses of the marriage. He could not therefore benefit from a debt in respect of the financing of the acquisition of this property.
Expiry of the order to pay
2nd Civil. March 19, 2015 (n°14-10.239) F-PB:
In this case, a bank had issued an order to pay amounting to seizure of property on February 16, 2010. By an orientation judgment of October 25, 2011, the execution judge of the tribunal de grande instance had declared the absolute nullity of the deed of loan and had declared null and void the order worth seizure of real estate, the release of which he had ordered.
While the bank had appealed against the judgment, the execution judge rejected a request for an extension of the effects of the order. The Court of Cassation quashed the appeal judgment under which the court had considered that the act of loan was regular. According to the Court of Cassation, due to the period of more than two years that had elapsed since its issuance on February 16, 2010, the order to pay amounting to seizure had expired and had automatically ceased to have effect since February 16, 2012. , so that it could not, after having annulled the orientation judgment, hear the dispute, bearing on the merits of the law, relating to the validity of the enforceable title founding the proceedings.
