The co-ownership of two lots does not fall under the simplified regime for small co-ownerships (articles 41-8 and following of the law of July 10, 1965), nor under the common law of classic co-ownerships. Ordinance No. 2019-1101 of October 30, 2019, created an autonomous legal regime, codified in articles 41-13 to 41-23 of the same law, applicable since June 1, 2020. Confusing these three regimes exposes one to contestable general assembly decisions and costly blockages.
Co-ownership of 2 lots and Carrez law: actual scope of the autonomous regime
The entry criterion into the regime of articles 41-13 to 41-23 is not the number of lots, but the distribution of votes between exactly two co-owners. A building with four lots, three of which belong to the same person, falls under this regime, while a building with two lots owned by three co-owners does not necessarily fall under it.
We regularly observe this confusion in co-ownership regulations drafted before 2020. The legal qualification depends on the ownership structure at the time of decision-making, not on the cadastral configuration. A change of owner can therefore shift the co-ownership from one regime to another during the exercise.
The regulations for a small co-ownership of 2 lots notably specify the cases where common areas may be absent from the regulation, a frequent situation in old buildings divided late.
Optional general assembly in co-ownership with two co-owners
Article 41-14 of the 1965 law allows the two co-owners to make any decision by written consultation, without convening a general assembly. The decision takes the form of a joint agreement signed by both parties, which produces the same effects as a general assembly minutes.
This flexibility has a technical downside. The agreement must comply with the formal requirements set by the decree of March 17, 1967: identification of the parties, precise object of the decision, date, and signature. A simple exchange of emails is not sufficient to constitute an agreement enforceable against third parties, contrary to what we observe in practice.
Authorized unilateral decisions
Article 41-17 allows a co-owner to undertake certain urgent works necessary for the preservation of the building alone, without the prior consent of the other. This ability is framed:
- The works must be rendered necessary by imminent peril or serious harm to the preservation of the building
- The co-owner who undertakes the works must inform the other without delay and justify their urgent nature
- The distribution of charges remains that provided for in the co-ownership regulation, unless judicial contestation
Urgency is assessed at the time of the decision, not retroactively. A co-owner who completely replaces a roof citing a localized leak exposes themselves to litigation over the actual scope of urgency.
Property manager in co-ownership of 2 lots: obligation maintained, simplified form
The appointment of a property manager remains mandatory, even in a co-ownership limited to two co-owners. Article 41-15, however, allows for delegating the property manager’s mission to one of the co-owners or to a third party, without going through a professional property manager.
We recommend formalizing this delegation through a written document separate from the co-ownership regulation. The delegation should specify the duration of the mandate, the authorized acts, and the conditions for revocation. In the absence of formalization, the co-owner acting as a de facto property manager incurs personal liability without benefiting from the protective framework of the mandate.
Bank account and budget forecast
The obligation to open a separate bank account in the name of the co-owners’ association applies to all co-ownerships, without size exceptions. However, small co-ownerships with an average budget forecast of less than 15,000 euros over three financial years benefit from partial accounting exemptions.
The budget forecast itself remains mandatory. Failing to establish it exposes the property manager (even a volunteer) to challenges regarding their management by the other co-owner.
Obligations 2025-2026: PPT and collective DPE for co-ownerships of 2 lots
Since January 1, 2025, the multi-year work plan (PPT) applies to co-ownerships of 50 lots or fewer, including those of 2 lots, as long as the building is over 15 years old. The PPT project must be submitted for the joint decision of the two co-owners.
The schedule for the collective DPE imposes a second constraint: since January 1, 2026, residential co-ownerships of 50 lots or fewer whose building permit is prior to January 1, 2013, must have a collective energy performance diagnosis. For a co-ownership of 2 lots, the cost of the collective DPE is shared between only two people, which represents a proportionally heavier burden than in a large complex.
- The PPT must cover a period of ten years and include an estimate of the cost of identified works
- The collective DPE covers the entire building, not each lot individually
- The works fund must be fed at least 5% of the annual budget forecast
- Non-compliance with these obligations does not lead to direct sanctions but weakens the co-ownership in case of sale or dispute
Blockage and judicial recourse between two co-owners
The structural risk of a two-lot co-ownership lies in the absence of a possible majority in case of disagreement. No majority vote can resolve a conflict between two co-owners. Article 41-19 provides that the co-owner who encounters the refusal of the other may bring the matter before the judicial court to obtain permission to carry out works or make a decision necessary for the preservation of the building.
This judicial procedure remains slow and costly. In advance, we recommend inserting a mandatory prior mediation clause into the co-ownership regulation, which requires the parties to attempt an amicable settlement before any court proceedings. This clause does not prevent recourse to the judge, but it creates a structured discussion framework.
The autonomous regime of co-ownership with two co-owners offers appreciable management flexibility, provided that each decision is formalized in writing. The new obligations of PPT and collective DPE add a layer of constraints that the apparent simplicity of the structure should not underestimate.