Unpaid service charges are one of the most common challenges in property management. For the property manager, every outstanding payment undermines the estate’s cash flow, jeopardises the funding of works approved at general meetings, and forces diligent co-owners to bear the burden of others’ non-payment. As the debt accumulates, the risk of the claim becoming time-barred increases and the chances of recovery diminish.
The legislature has gradually established a comprehensive framework — reinforced by the SRU Act (2000), the ELAN Act (2018) and the Order of 30 October 2019 — which provides the property manager with a range of tools to act swiftly, without prior authorisation from the general meeting. However, recent case law from the Court of Cassation firmly reiterates that these tools are subject to strict formal requirements: an imprecise formal notice, unapproved accounts or an incorrect choice of procedure may be sufficient to cause the action to fail.
This guide outlines the entire process of recovering co-ownership charges, from the amicable phase to the enforcement of the judgment, highlighting key considerations drawn from practice and the most recent case law.
Summary of the key stages of recovery:
- Identification of the outstanding debt and amicable reminders
- Formal notice by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt (LRAR), detailing the nature and amount of the fees claimed
- Selection of the appropriate legal procedure
- Obtaining an enforceable order
- Implementation of enforcement measures
The legal basis for the claim for service charges
The co-owner’s obligation to pay
Each co-owner is required to contribute to the service charges of the co-ownership in accordance with Article 10 of the Act of 10 July 1965. This obligation covers both the charges arising from communal services and shared facilities — apportioned according to the objective benefit to each unit — and the charges relating to the upkeep, maintenance and administration of the common areas, apportioned in proportion to the shares.
Approval of the accounts by the general meeting renders the co-ownership’s claim certain, liquid and due. A co-owner who has not contested this decision within the statutory two-month period (Article 42) may not subsequently refuse to pay the sums claimed. As for the quarterly provisions of the provisional budget, they are due on the first day of each quarter — or on the date set by the meeting — without waiting for the accounts to be approved.
This mechanism has a fundamental practical consequence for the property manager: the regular voting on provisional budgets and the annual approval of the accounts directly determine the ability to recover unpaid amounts, particularly under the accelerated procedure. The Court of Cassation reiterated this in a judgment of 20 November 2025 (No. 23-23.315): arrears from financial years for which the accounts have not been approved cannot be claimed through this procedure.
The five-year limitation period: a deadline that requires prompt action
Claims for the recovery of co-ownership charges are subject to a five-year limitation period, pursuant to Article 42 of the Act of 10 July 1965 and Article 2224 of the Civil Code. This period runs from the date on which the co-ownership became aware, or ought to have become aware, of the facts enabling the claim to be brought. In practice, for quarterly contributions, the limitation period begins to run from the due date of each contribution.
The property manager must therefore pay close attention to the collection schedule: allowing unpaid arrears to accumulate over several years without taking action exposes the co-ownership to a partial limitation of its claim, which can no longer be recovered either through amicable means or through legal proceedings.
The amicable phase: reminders and formal notices
Reminders from the property manager
Before taking any legal action, the property manager generally sends reminders to the defaulting co-owner. These reminders — sent by post, email or telephone — have no specific legal effect and do not trigger the mechanism for the acceleration of the debt. They nevertheless serve a clear practical purpose: a co-owner acting in good faith who is facing temporary financial difficulties can rectify their situation without incurring legal costs.
From the point of view of the allocation of costs, reminders sent prior to formal notice are not considered ‘necessary costs’ within the meaning of Article 10-1 of the Act of 10 July 1965. Their cost therefore remains the responsibility of the co-ownership and not of the co-owner in arrears.
The formal notice: formal requirements and mandatory content
The formal notice constitutes the cornerstone of the recovery of co-ownership charges. It is this notice that triggers the mechanism for the acceleration of the due date provided for in Article 19-2 of the Act of 10 July 1965 and which determines the admissibility of the expedited proceedings on the merits.
It must be sent by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt or by a bailiff’s writ. The 30-day period runs from the day following the first delivery of the registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt at the co-owner’s address.
As regards the content, the Court of Cassation laid down a specific requirement in its opinion of 12 December 2024 (No. 24-70.007): the formal notice must specify the nature and amount of the payments claimed, failing which the claim will be inadmissible. A formal notice that merely mentions a total balance, without any details, is insufficient. In a judgment of 15 January 2026 (No. 23-23.534), the Court confirmed that accelerated enforceability is strictly limited to the scope of the formal notice: the property manager cannot extend their claim to subsequent financial years without providing further formal notices.
In practice, it is therefore in the property manager’s interest to issue new formal notices for each new unpaid instalment, detailing the amounts in question each time.
Legal proceedings for the recovery of co-ownership charges
The property manager takes legal action on behalf of the co-ownership without requiring authorisation from the general meeting. He must simply report on the action taken at the next meeting. Three legal avenues are available to him, in addition to the mechanism of challenging the sale price.
The expedited proceedings on the merits (Article 19-2)
This is the most commonly used recovery procedure in co-ownership. It allows the property manager to apply to the president of the district court in the area where the building is situated to order the defaulting co-owner to pay. The decision handed down is a judgment on the merits — not a provisional order — accompanied by automatic provisional enforcement.
The scope of this procedure covers quarterly contributions to the provisional budget, sums relating to unbudgeted works, arrears from previous financial years following approval of the accounts, and contributions to the works fund.
The cumulative conditions for admissibility, as specified by the Court of Cassation in January 2026, are as follows: a prior formal notice specifying the nature and amount of the contributions, which has remained unheeded for more than 30 days; approval of the accounts by the general meeting for the financial years for which arrears are claimed; and compliance with the scope of the formal notice, without extension to financial years not covered.
The judge’s role is strictly limited: he or she notes the default and orders payment. The judge cannot hear counterclaims by the co-owner, even if they are sufficiently linked to the association’s claims. This lack of jurisdiction constitutes a ground for dismissal. A co-owner wishing to contest the claim must do so through a separate action on the merits.
The order for payment
The order for payment procedure is available to the property manager for the recovery of co-ownership charges pursuant to Article 60 of the Decree of 17 March 1967. The application must be brought before the President of the judicial court in the locality where the building is situated.
This procedure, which is simpler and less costly than the expedited procedure, is suitable for uncontested service charge claims where the amount is precisely determined by the decisions of the general meeting and the co-ownership regulations.
The main limitation of the order for payment lies in the risk of an objection being raised by the co-owner, which then refers the parties to the trial judge and negates the advantage of the procedure’s speed.
The summons to pay on the merits
The action on the merits before the civil court in the locality where the building is situated constitutes the ordinary legal procedure. It is preferable in certain situations: where the claim is complex or disputed, or where the co-ownership association intends to make additional claims such as damages for unreasonable obstruction.
The co-ownership must support its claim with solid evidence: minutes of general meetings approving the accounts, calls for funds, a detailed individual statement of charges due, a copy of the co-ownership regulations and proof of formal notices sent. To obtain damages, the co-ownership association must demonstrate the co-owner’s bad faith and a loss distinct from mere late payment — the mere deprivation of cash flow for several months is not sufficient.
Objection to the sale price upon the transfer of a unit
When a co-ownership unit is sold, the property manager has a specific mechanism available under Article 20 of the Act of 10 July 1965. If the seller does not present the notary with a certificate from the property manager attesting that they are free of any obligations, the notary must notify the property manager of the transfer. The property manager then has 15 days from receipt of this notice to object to the payment of the funds, by extrajudicial document served at the address for service.
The objection must, on pain of nullity, state the amount and the grounds for the claim. In the absence of a legal challenge within three months, the notary pays the withheld sums to the co-ownership.
This mechanism is particularly effective as it allows arrears to be recovered directly from the proceeds of the sale, without prior legal proceedings. The property manager must, however, act promptly: the 15-day period is short, and the slightest formal irregularity renders the objection null and void.
Recovery costs: what the property manager may charge to the co-owner in debt
Article 10-1 of the Act of 10 July 1965 provides that the necessary costs incurred by the co-ownership association for the recovery of a justified debt are chargeable solely to the defaulting co-owner. This includes the costs of formal notice, subsequent reminders, the registration of a mortgage, as well as the fees and charges for the acts of the judicial officer.
Case law interprets this concept strictly. Case law considers that costs incurred prior to the formal notice, costs of monitoring the proceedings, and the property manager’s fees for forwarding the file to the solicitor are not chargeable to the co-owner, except in cases of exceptional diligence. Bailiff’s fees for bringing proceedings or serving pleadings are classified as costs. Solicitors’ fees are subject to the judge’s discretion under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The judge also retains a discretionary power: he or she may decide to waive the allocation of costs to the co-owner in the interests of fairness or in view of the parties’ financial circumstances.
For the property manager, good practice involves distinguishing between costs attributable to the defaulting co-owner and general day-to-day management costs, and retaining supporting documents for each expense incurred.
Key considerations for the property manager: building a strong case
The success of a claim for recovery of co-ownership charges depends largely on the quality of the case file prepared in advance. Regardless of the procedure chosen, the property manager must be able to produce the following documents: the minutes of the general meetings that approved the provisional budgets and annual accounts for the periods in question, the requests for payment sent to the co-owner, copies of formal notices with acknowledgement of receipt, a detailed and up-to-date individual statement of charges due, the co-ownership regulations, and supporting documents for the recovery costs incurred.
Certain specific situations require particular vigilance. In the event of a division of ownership (bare owner and usufructuary), the property manager must identify the party liable for the charges according to their nature and issue formal notices accordingly. In the event of the co-owner’s death, they must identify the heirs and, where necessary, use the interrogatory procedure to compel them to take a position on the estate, as their choice regarding the estate determines the extent of their liability.
Are you a property manager looking to secure the recovery of unpaid charges or assess the most appropriate strategy for a current case? Our firm supports you at every stage, from issuing a formal notice to enforcing the judgment.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the steps involved in recovering unpaid service charges?
The debt recovery process follows a multi-stage procedure: initial friendly reminders, a formal notice sent by registered post detailing the nature and amount of the outstanding payments, the expiry of the 30-day period triggering the acceleration of the debt, followed by the initiation of the appropriate legal proceedings (expedited proceedings on the merits, an order for payment or a summons to appear in court) until an enforceable judgment is obtained. In the event of the sale of the property, the property manager may also lodge an objection to the sale price with the solicitor.
Does the property manager need authorisation from the general meeting to take action to recover service charges?
No. The property manager may, on their own initiative, take any action to recover service charges, regardless of the procedure chosen, without prior authorisation from the general meeting. They are simply required to report on the action taken at the next general meeting.
What is the limitation period for recovering unpaid service charges?
Claims for recovery are subject to a limitation period of five years, pursuant to Article 42 of the Act of 10 July 1965 and Article 2224 of the Civil Code. This period begins to run from the date on which each payment becomes due. The property manager must therefore act without delay to prevent any part of the claim from becoming time-barred.
What is the difference between the fast-track procedure on the merits and a payment order in a co-ownership case?
The expedited proceedings on the merits (section 19-2 of the Act of 10 July 1965) allow a judgment on the merits to be obtained with automatic provisional enforcement, following a formal notice that has remained unanswered for 30 days. It is suitable for most cases of non-payment, but is subject to strict procedural requirements. The order for payment is a simpler and less costly procedure, which does not require legal representation, but it is reserved for uncontested claims where the amount is precisely determined and loses its purpose if the co-owner lodges an objection.
What recovery costs can the property manager charge to the defaulting co-owner?
Article 10-1 of the Act of 10 July 1965 allows the costs necessary for recovery to be charged to the co-owner in default: costs of formal notice, subsequent reminders, the registration of a mortgage, and the fees and charges for the judicial officer’s deeds. Case law excludes, however, reminder fees incurred prior to the formal notice and the property manager’s routine management fees. The court may adjust this allocation in the interests of fairness or in light of the parties’ financial circumstances.