Co-ownership Appeal Dismissed as Untimely Service on Alleged Former Syndic
France (FR)
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IAThe appeal filed by a co-ownership against a judgment rendered against it, which had been served upon an individual identified as the syndic, was deemed inadmissible as untimely because the service occurred on May 18, 1972, and the appeal was lodged on December 13, 1972. The appellant contended that the individual served was not a valid syndic, that the lower court failed to address arguments concerning the lack of a general assembly designation for the individual served, and that notice of the individual's resignation was sent prior to service. However, the appellate court upheld the inadmissibility by finding that the original judgment was pronounced against the co-ownership represented by the individual identified as its syndic, service was effected upon this individual in that capacity, and the individual accepted the service, thereby justifying the rejection of the appeal as time-barred.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IACo-ownership Appeal Dismissed as Untimely Service on Alleged Former Syndic: The appellant contended that the individual served was not a valid syndic, that the lower court failed to address arguments concerning the lack of a general assembly designation for the individual served, and that notice of the individual's resignation was sent prior to service. However, the appellate court upheld the inadmissibility by finding that the original judgment was pronounced against the co-ownership represented by the individual identified as its syndic, service was effected upon this individual in that capacity, and the individual accepted the service, thereby justifying the rejection of the appeal as time-barred.
Mots-clés
Généré par l'IADécisions connexes
Généré par l'IATexte complet
SUR LE MOYEN UNIQUE : ATTENDU QU'IL EST FAIT GRIEF A L'ARRET ATTAQUE D'AVOIR DECLARE IRRECEVABLE, COMME TARDIF, L'APPEL DE LA COPROPRIETE DE L'IMMEUBLE GAI SOLEIL, INTERJETE LE 13 DECEMBRE 1972 A L'ENCONTRE D'UN JUGEMENT DU 25 FEVRIER 1972 LA CONDAMNANT A VERSER DIVERSES INDEMNITES A JOSEPH X... ET A LA SOCIETE ANONYME X..., COPROPRIETAIRES, JUGEMENT SIGNIFIE LE 18 MAI 1972 A PARPILLON, PRIS COMME SYNDIC ET PARLANT A SA PERSONNE, ALORS, SELON LE MOYEN, QUE, D'UNE PART, LES JUGES DU FOND ONT OMIS DE REPONDRE AUX CONCLUSIONS DU SYNDICAT FAISANT VALOIR QU'AUCUNE DELIBERATION DE L'ASSEMBLEE N'AVAIT DESIGNE PARPILLON COMME SYNDIC, DE SORTE QU'AUCUN ACTE NE POUVAIT LUI ETRE VALABLEMENT DELIVRE, QUE, D'AUTRE PART, EN RETENANT PARTIELLEMENT UNE ENONCIATION DE L'ACTE D'APPEL, LES JUGES DU FOND ONT MECONNU LE PRINCIPE DE L'INDIVISIBILITE DE L'AVEU, ET QU'ENFIN IL N'AURAIT PAS ETE REPONDU AU MOYEN TIRE DE L'ENVOI, LE 18 FEVRIER 1972, A X... D'UNE LETTRE L'AVERTISSANT DE LA DEMISSION DU SYNDIC PARPILLON ET DE LA REUNION D'UNE ASSEMBLEE POUR LE 4 MARS 1972 ;
QU'AINSI, RIEN N'ETABLISSAIT QU'A LA DATE DE LA SIGNIFICATION DU JUGEMENT, PARPILLON ETAIT SYNDIC DE LA COPROPRIETE ;
MAIS ATTENDU QUE LA COUR D'APPEL CONSTATE QUE LE JUGEMENT A ETE PRONONCE CONTRE LA COPROPRIETE REPRESENTEE PAR SON SYNDIC PARPILLON, QU'IL A ETE SIGNIFIE A LA PERSONNE DE CE DERNIER, ES QUALITES DE SYNDIC, ET QUE CELUI-CI A ACCEPTE CETTE SIGNIFICATION ;
QUE, PAR CES SEULS MOTIFS, ELLE A JUSTIFIE SA DECISION ;
PAR CES MOTIFS : REJETTE LE POURVOI FORME CONTRE L'ARRET RENDU LE 27 JUIN 1973 PAR LA COUR D'APPEL DE GRENOBLE.