It is a stuck situation from which we may fear we will never see an outcome. Following an inheritance or separation, ownership of the same property can be shared between several people, who are called joint owners. According to the Civil Code, this situation must only be temporary: “No one can be forced to remain in joint ownership“, recalls its article 815. However, if the co-owners cannot reach an agreement, and one of them refuses to transfer his shares, or to buy back that of another, the blockage can drag on.
This is what happened to Christine*, 45 years old, who, following a civil partnership breakdown, found herself jointly sharing a property with her ex-spouse. “Exiting joint ownership is well enshrined in the Civil Code, but its implementation is complexshe explains. “I found out how to get out, and I went to see a notary. In this study, there was a shared cupboard, with tons of files…” A story similar to that of Vanessa*, 36, who, following a divorce, also wishes to get out of the joint ownership that binds her to her ex-husband and her ex-father-in-law, both co-owners of her apartment in Marseille.
The legal process can take several years
“It was impossible to make them listen to reason, the exchanges were slow and complicated, like during divorce. All discussion was wasted,” regrets the young woman. Both fear being stuck in this way for several years: “We can always contact a judge who orders the release of joint ownership, but that means hiring a lawyer, and accepting the delay in the procedure, which can take a long time”continues Christine. In his case, the end of the joint ownership in fact involves the liquidation of the matrimonial regime, that is to say its sharing, an operation supposed to last a maximum of one year, but sometimes much longer.
And time is against her: “I risked entering into a procedure that would last 10 years, in which I would have had to invest a lot, and this even though I knew that my ex-husband, who planned to live rent-free in the property, would not be able to maintain it, and that it would no longer be worth much in the end.” The same goes for Vanessa, who fears having to pay charges for years that she should not have had to bear alone.
“I understood that when faced with a company, he would be obliged to respect his obligations”
In search of an alternative solution, the two women then turned to the company Braxton Indivision, which offered to buy back their shares in the joint ownership. For Christine, the fact that her ex-partner was confronted with a company and no longer with her was enough to resolve the situation: “We were in a rotten situation, but I understood that when faced with a company, he would be obliged to respect his obligations, such as paying his rent debts, or simply respond to me, because he would no longer have leverage over me based on affect. He would be forced to buy or sell.she explains. Her ex-husband ended up buying the entire property.
Stuck for five years, Vanessa, who needed cash for a project, also discovered this solution. “The two other co-owners refused to allow me to transfer my shares to Braxton, but they were therefore obliged to buy them back from me at the price imposed by the company”she remembers. Finally, the situation was resolved within three months. “Until now, we have always found common ground with the joint owners. Calling on a company allows us to restore neutrality to the situation, and to offer them a range of solutions: buying back their shares, selling them those we have bought back, revaluing the property to resell it together, etc..”explains Marie-Astrid Delabrousse-Mayoux, manager of Braxton Indivision.
In exchange for this service, the two women agreed to give 20 to 30% of what their shares were worth to the company. A price “which also includes no longer having to worry about anything, covering the costs of proceedings, mail, etc.”details Vanessa. Above all, Christine believes that she has given herself peace of mind: “I agreed to lose a little to gain more: I no longer had this permanent weight, and this psychological pressure which prevented me from working. It was also a gentler solution than initiating legal proceedings against a loved one, which is not possible for everyone.”
*First names have been changed
