The judgment of 12 February 2026 (No. 24-16.429) handed down by the Court of Cassation settles a recurring issue in practice: does the property manager require authorisation from the general meeting to instruct a lawyer to recover unpaid service charges? The clear answer provides welcome certainty for property managers and their legal advisers.
Summary of the key points of the decision:
- The property manager may instruct a lawyer to take action to recover co-ownership charges without prior authorisation from the general meeting
- The fee agreement signed by a property manager on behalf of the co-ownership binds the co-owners’ association, and not the property manager personally
- A lawyer appointed by a former property manager may claim their fees from the co-owners’ association, represented by the current property manager, whoever that may be
The facts: a lawyer instructed by a former property manager to recover charges
A professional property manager had instructed a lawyer to take action to recover charges from co-owners in arrears. The lawyer had initiated proceedings but was relieved of his duties before the end of his assignment, following a change of property manager.
The lawyer then referred the matter to the President of the Bar to determine his fees. The new property manager — a volunteer — contested any obligation to pay, on the grounds that the former property manager had instructed the lawyer without the authorisation of the general meeting and that the fee agreement had been signed with the former property manager, meaning that the fees could only be claimed from the latter.
In a judgment of 10 April 2024 (No. 23/00288), the Paris Court of Appeal had ruled in favour of the owners’ association on both points, declaring the lawyer’s claims inadmissible.
The Court of Cassation: the property manager does not require authorisation from the general meeting to take recovery action
The principle reiterated by the Court of Cassation
Pursuant to Article 18 of the Act of 10 July 1965 and Article 55 of the Decree of 17 March 1967, the Court of Cassation quashed the appeal judgment, reiterating a rule clearly laid down in the legislation: whilst the property manager cannot, in principle, take legal action on behalf of the co-ownership without authorisation from the general meeting, such authorisation is not required for debt recovery proceedings.
This principle, derived from Article 55 of the 1967 Decree, is justified by the very nature of the recovery of charges: it is a routine administrative task of the property manager, inherent to the management of the co-ownership’s finances. Requiring prior approval for every debt recovery action would paralyse the property manager’s ability to act with the responsiveness required by unpaid debts.
The practical consequences for the property manager
In overturning the Court of Appeal’s ruling, the Court of Cassation draws all the consequences of this principle: since no authorisation from the general meeting is required to bring an action for the recovery of charges, the fee agreement entered into by the property manager with a lawyer for this purpose is validly concluded in the name of the co-ownership, without the need to provide evidence of a specific resolution.
The property manager acts as the legal representative of the co-ownership. It is therefore the co-owners’ association that is the lawyer’s contracting party and the party liable for the fees, and not the property manager in a personal capacity. This point is not new, but the confusion created by the Court of Appeal shows that it remains a source of errors in practice.
The enforceability of the fee agreement against the successor property manager
The party liable for the fees is the co-ownership, not the property manager
The appeal judgment had held that the lawyer should direct his claims against the former property manager who had signed the agreement, and not against the current voluntary property manager. The Court of Cassation has rejected this reasoning.
The property manager, whether professional or voluntary, does not act in their own name when they instruct a lawyer on behalf of the co-ownership. They act as a representative of the co-owners’ association within the meaning of Article 18 of the Act of 10 July 1965. The commitment made — including the fee agreement — is binding on the co-ownership itself. A change of property manager has no effect on this obligation: the new property manager, in their capacity as the current representative, is the lawyer’s point of contact for the recovery of fees owed by the co-ownership.
A useful reminder for practitioners
In practice, this means that a lawyer appointed by a property manager to recover unpaid charges may, in the event of a change of property manager during the course of the assignment, claim their fees from the co-owners’ association represented by the current property manager, whoever that may be. The successor property manager cannot object to the lawyer on the grounds that they did not personally sign the fee agreement.
A procedural point: inadmissibility and dismissal are mutually exclusive
The Court of Cassation also criticises the appeal judgment on a procedural point which, although standard, is worth noting. The Court of Appeal had both declared the lawyer’s claims inadmissible and dismissed those same claims on the merits.
Pursuant to Article 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court points out that a judge who declares a claim inadmissible exceeds his powers if he subsequently rules on the merits of that same claim. Inadmissibility and dismissal on the merits are mutually exclusive: either the claim is inadmissible and the judge cannot examine it on the merits, or it is admissible and the judge rules on its merits.
Although this judgment concerns a matter of lawyers’ fees, its scope extends beyond this specific dispute. It strongly confirms that the property manager has full autonomy to bring proceedings for the recovery of co-ownership charges, including the appointment of a lawyer, without having to obtain authorisation from the general meeting. For property managers, this guarantees the ability to act with the necessary responsiveness in the face of unpaid charges. For lawyers acting in co-ownership matters, it provides the assurance that their fee agreement is validly binding on the co-ownership, regardless of which property manager is in office at the time of invoicing.
Are you a property manager looking to instruct a lawyer to recover unpaid charges? Our firm can assist you with the implementation of recovery procedures, from issuing a formal notice to enforcing the court judgment.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the property manager need authorisation from the general meeting to instruct a lawyer to recover service charges?
No. The Court of Cassation points out, with reference to Article 18 of the Act of 10 July 1965 and Article 55 of the Decree of 17 March 1967, that actions to recover debts do not require prior authorisation from the general meeting. The property manager may therefore validly sign a fee agreement with a lawyer and initiate proceedings to recover co-ownership charges on his own initiative.
Who is liable for the fees of the lawyer appointed by the property manager: the property manager or the owners’ association?
It is the owners’ association that is liable for the fees, not the property manager in a personal capacity. The property manager acts as the legal representative of the owners’ association when instructing a lawyer. The fee agreement signed by the property manager is therefore binding on the owners’ association itself, in accordance with Article 18 of the Act of 10 July 1965.
If there is a change of property manager, can the new property manager refuse to pay the fees of the lawyer appointed by their predecessor?
No. The Court of Cassation has ruled that the obligation to pay fees lies with the co-ownership association and not with the property manager who signed the agreement. A change of property manager has no bearing on this: the lawyer may claim their fees from the co-ownership association, represented by the current property manager, whoever that may be.
Does the exemption from the requirement for prior authorisation by the general meeting apply to all legal proceedings brought by the property manager?
No. The exemption applies only to proceedings for the recovery of debts. For other legal proceedings — such as liability claims or challenges to planning permission — the property manager must obtain prior authorisation from the general meeting, in accordance with Article 55 of the Decree of 17 March 1967.
Is the property manager required to report to the general meeting on debt recovery proceedings initiated without prior authorisation?
Yes. Whilst the property manager does not require authorisation from the general meeting to take legal action to recover service charges, they are still required to report on this at the next meeting. This duty to provide information, set out in Article 55 of the Decree of 17 March 1967, enables co-owners to remain informed about ongoing proceedings and costs incurred, without hindering the property manager’s ability to act swiftly in response to unpaid charges.