1. Real estate agent – Register of mandates
2. The seller: holder of the right to bring an action to annul the acceptance of the offer to sell
3. The mere presence of asbestos is not a latent defect
4. Commercial lease – Option period
5. Request for annulment of an amendment to the descriptive statement of division and the condominium regulations
6. Basis of the liability of the condominium association
1. Real Estate Agent – Register of Mandates
, 1st Civil Chamber, December 10, 2014 (No. 13-24.352) F-PB:
The use of two separate registers, one for sales mandates and the other for search mandates, is not in accordance with Article 72 of Decree No. 72-678 of July 20, 1972, which stipulates that mandates must be recorded in a single register.
Failure to comply with this provision renders the mandate null and void.
2. The Seller: Holder of the right to bring an action to annul the acceptance of the offer to sell,
1st Civil Chamber, January 15, 2015 (No. 14-11.019) FS-PB:
A notice to vacate for the purpose of selling is served on a tenant. A preliminary sales agreement is then granted at a more advantageous price to two prospective buyers. In accordance with the provisions of Article 15 II of Law No. 89-462 of July 6, 1989, the notary notified the tenant of a second offer to sell, which the tenant accepted. Although the deadline for completing the sale had passed, the notary proceeded with the sale to the tenant.
The prospective buyers, believing their rights had been violated, sued the notary, notably seeking damages. In support of their claim, they invoke the automatic nullity of the refusal of the offer to sell, as provided for in Article 15 II, paragraph 5 of the 1989 Law.
The Court of Cassation and the Court of Appeal consider that only the landlord can invoke the nullity of the acceptance of the offer to sell stipulated by Article 15 II, paragraph 5 of the 1989 Law. Consequently, by executing the deed of sale requested by the landlord, the notary did not fail in any of his professional obligations towards the prospective buyers.
3. The mere presence of asbestos is not a latent defect (
3rd Civil Chamber). December 16, 2014 (No. 13-17.469) FD:
In this case, the Court of Cassation reiterates that the seller is only required to have an asbestos survey carried out and provide the buyers with a report for the detection of asbestos inside the building.
The Court further clarifies that the mere presence of harmless asbestos in materials in good condition does not render the building unfit for its intended purpose and is not considered a latent defect giving rise to an action for rescission or price reduction.
4. Commercial Lease – Time Limit for Exercising the Option Right
3rd Civil Chamber, January 14, 2015 (No. 13-23.490) FS-PBI:
The decision setting the rent for the renewed lease was served on the tenant on December 16, 2008. On February 13, 2009, the tenant notified the landlord of the exercise of their option right. The question then arises as to the time limit within which the right of option can be exercised.
The Court of Cassation reiterates, firstly, that service of the first-instance decision setting the rent starts both the option period and the appeal period. Secondly, it clarifies that the Commercial Code does not provide for double service of the decision setting the rent for the renewed lease for the exercise of the right of option. Consequently, the tenant company's exercise of its right of option on February 13, 2009, was late.
5. Request for annulment of an amendment to the descriptive statement of division and the condominium regulations
. 3rd Civil Chamber, December 17, 2014 (No. 13-23.350) FS-PB:
Co-owners are requesting the reinstatement of units within the common areas of the building, the annulment of the composition of one of the units in the initial descriptive statement, and the annulment of the amended descriptive statement of division.
lower court judges declared the claim inadmissible. The Court of Cassation upheld this decision. Indeed, according to the Court of Cassation, these claims, seeking the annulment of deeds or real property rights resulting from deeds registered with the land registry, are inadmissible due to the lack of registration of the summonses in the land registry.
6. Basis of the Condominium Association's Liability
3rd Civil Chamber, January 14, 2015 (No. 13-28.030) FS-PBI:
A condominium association was ordered to indemnify one of the co-owners, the landlord, against judgments rendered against him seeking compensation for damages caused by work carried out in the common areas, which forced the tenant of a commercial space to interrupt his business for several months.
According to the Court of Appeal, since the landlord was not seeking compensation for himself, the condominium association's liability was based on Article 1384 of the Civil Code and not on Article 9, paragraph 4, of the Law of July 10, 1965, which provides that a co-owner who suffers harm due to the execution of works of collective interest is entitled to compensation.
The Court of Cassation overturned the judgment on the grounds that the landlord was seeking compensation for personal harm resulting from his obligation to remedy the disturbances suffered by his tenant, and that, since the works were carried out by the condominium association and affected the tenant's private areas, only the provisions of Article 9, paragraph 4, of the Law of July 10, 1965, were applicable.
