Third civil chamber Partial cassation
LexInter | June 15, 2002 | 0 Comments

Third civil chamber Partial cassation

On the first plea:

Whereas, according to the judgment under appeal (Valence district court, July 21, 1999), ruling as a last resort, that, by notarial deed of July 10, 1998, Ms. Guiraud sold to Ms. Gil a studio located in a building subject to the statute co-ownership, covering an area of ​​24 square meters, at a price of 175,000 francs, of which 8,000 francs correspond to the price of the furniture; that, the February 16, 1999, Mrs. Guiraud assigned Miss Gil in payment of a part of the property tax and the bottom of working of joint ownership; that, counter-claim, Miss Gil requested the reimbursement of the work of cleaning up the facade and the reduction of the sale price, in application of article 46 of the law of July 10, 1965;

Whereas Mrs. Guiraud criticizes the judgment of ordering her to pay to Miss Gil a sum in reimbursement of renovation works, then, according to the means, that the fifteenth resolution of the general meeting of August 23, 1997 stipulates that: “In the framework of future work concerning the renovation of facades and waterproofing complexes, establishment of a project manager whose mission is to constitute in a first time all the contractual technical file, as well as the price offers corresponding to the work. The co-owners present or represented unanimously decide to mandate the union council to make the choice of the project manager “; that it is clear from this resolution that the only decision adopted was to mandate the union council to make the choice of ” a prime contractor for future work which has not yet been decided; that, by retaining that it follows from the minutes of the general meeting of August 23, 1997 that the work was decided, the Court distorted the clear and precise terms of this resolution and violated article 1134 of the Civil Code;

But given that the Court noted, by an exclusive sovereign interpretation of distortion, that the ambiguity of the terms of the minutes of the general meeting of August 23, 1997 made it necessary, that on that date the work of refurbishment of the facade had been decided;

From which it follows that the plea is unfounded;

But on the second means:

Considering article 4-1 of the decree of March 17, 1967 in its wording resulting from the decree of May 23, 1997;

Whereas the area of ​​the private part of a lot or a fraction of a lot mentioned in article 46 of the law of July 10, 1965 is the area of ​​the floors of closed and covered premises after deduction of the areas occupied by walls, partitions, steps and stairwells, casings and doorways and windows; that it is not taken into account floors parts of the premises of a height lower than 1.80 meters;

Whereas in order to condemn Ms. Guiraud to pay Miss Gil a sum deducted from the stipulated price, the Court holds that the area certification established by the Alizé appraisal firm on April 19, 1999 shows that the area within the meaning of article 46 of the law of 10 July 1965 as defined by Article 1 st of May 23, 1997 decree of 22.76 square meters, whereas, therefore, the area of the property sold is lower by more than one-twentieth expressed in the act;

That by ruling thus, without characterizing the nature of the surfaces deducted, the Court violated the aforementioned text;

FOR THESE REASONS :

BROKEN and CANCELED but only in that it condemned Ms. Guiraud to pay Miss Gil the sum of 9,098 francs, the judgment rendered on July 21, 1999, between the parties, by the court of Valencia; puts, consequently, as for this, the cause and the parts in the state where they were before the aforementioned judgment and, to be done right, returns them before the district court of Montélimar;

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.


CAPTCHA Image
Reload Image