Under the law, even a dilapidated building justifies residential rent

A recent ruling by the Court of Cassation held that the poor condition of a building is not a valid argument for exempting a person who uses it exclusively from compensating the other owners (Cass. Civ. 1, March 27, 2024, X 22-14.552). This decision stems from a dispute between two heirs regarding the use of an apartment.

One of the heirs, who was not benefiting from the property, accused the other of using it exclusively without compensating him. Initially, the court ruled in favor of the occupant, based on the fact that the rental value of the building was zero given its dilapidated condition. No rent could be collected from it since everything was dilapidated, worn out, and unsanitary, according to the occupant.

However, the Court of Cassation overturned this decision, ruling that regardless of the condition of the apartment—and whether or not it could be offered for rent on the open market—the fact remains that one of its owners is occupying it alone and must compensate the others.

In January 2015, the Court had already clarified that, in order to no longer be liable for compensation, the occupant must prove that he or she had made the premises available to the other co-owners. Furthermore, the compensation is due whenever even one person is in a position to use the property—for example, by being the sole holder of the keys—regardless of whether that person actually uses it, the Court clarified in March 2016.

Thus, even if the property is in very poor condition and cannot be rented on the open market, the exclusive occupant must pay compensation to the other co-owners. Exclusive occupancy of a jointly owned property therefore justifies the payment of rent, regardless of the property’s livability.