In real estate, beware of generosity … Mr. P. learned it at his expense. Twenty years ago, he Leads one of his apartments To an Italian friend, Mrs. Y., suffering from AIDS, in order to allow her to be treated in a hospital in France. Madame Y. occupies the property free of charge, on the basis of a simple verbal agreement with Mr. P .. But 23 years later, the latter needs to recover the apartment. Out of the question for Madame Y., even after receiving a registered letter Asking him to leave!
Madame Y. may be a friend, Mr. P., who has an urgent need for her apartment, sees no other solution than theassignin order to obtain the termination of the loan of the property, the expulsion of Mrs. Y. and the payment, by the latter, of an occupancy compensation since the reception of the registered letter. To defend herself, Madame Y. assures that this is a so -called “life” loan, supposed to last until her death. It relies on the definition of loan for usewhich is, according to article 1875 of the Civil Code, “A contract by which one of the parties delivers one thing to the other to use it, in charge of making it after having used it”. Madame Y. considers herself to use the apartment, to continue to be treated at the nearby hospital, until her death, “Predictable natural term” The loan of the property, given the severity of his illness.
Real estate: this new system makes it possible to monetize your accommodation by remaining owner
Always formalize a loan for writing in writing
The judges are right but Mr. P. appeals to their decision. This time, the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal rules in favor of the owner. Madame Y. was then made in a cassation. In a decision rendered on May 14, 2025, identified by the law firm Adonis, the Court of Cassation dismissed Madame Y, confirming the analysis of the court of appeal according to which “No natural term, such as the death of the interested party, is predictable”. The Court of Cassation “Recalls a simple but essential principle: in the absence of an agreed or predictable term, The loan for use can be terminated at any time by the lender, provided that a reasonable notice period “of three months in this specific case, deciphers the law firm. And to insist: “The loan for use does not give any right to the maintenance in the premises, unlike a housing lease.»»
According to lawyers, this decision of the Court of Cassation constitutes “a recall bite»» For owners who agree to let accommodation occupy for free. Not only the absence of a written contract “Create ambiguity” But, in the event of a dispute, proof of the initial agreement can only be based on “Testimonials or material indices“, Underlines the law firm. Who therefore advises to always formalize a loan for use “In writing, even briefly”.
