Estate Partition: Valuation of Pre-existing Agricultural Lease for Collation Purposes
France (FR)
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IAIn a dispute over the partition of an estate, where an agricultural lease, granted in 1951, was ordered by the lower court to be valued as if free of the lease for the division, the appellant argued that the requirement of collation (rapport) under Article 843 of the Civil Code should not apply because the lease was granted by co-heirs after the succession opened and was not a gift from the deceased. The court dismissed the appeal, reasoning that since the non-reciprocal lease conferred an indirect advantage to the lessee at the expense of the shared estate, equality among the co-indivisees in the partition required that the value of this advantage be brought into the estate, regardless of whether the lease was granted by the deceased or by the co-heirs after the succession opened, unless a preferential character had been explicitly assigned to the advantage.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IAARTICLE 843 DU CODE CIVIL; Estate Partition: Valuation of Pre-existing Agricultural Lease for Collation Purposes: The court dismissed the appeal, reasoning that since the non-reciprocal lease conferred an indirect advantage to the lessee at the expense of the shared estate, equality among the co-indivisees in the partition required that the value of this advantage be brought into the estate, regardless of whether the lease was granted by the deceased or by the co-heirs after the succession opened, unless a preferential character had been explicitly assigned to the advantage.
Mots-clés
Généré par l'IADispositions légales citées
Généré par l'IADécisions connexes
Généré par l'IAQuestions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator
Généré par l'IAThe court rejected the appeal by confirming that the value of the advantage conferred by the lease had to be reported to the estate under this article, as applied by the lower court.
Texte complet
SUR LE MOYEN UNIQUE :
ATTENDU QUE, L'ARRET CONFIRMATIF ATTAQUE AYANT PRESCRIT QUE, DANS LES OPERATIONS DE PARTAGE DE LA SUCCESSION DE SON PERE, L'EXPLOITATION AGRICOLE DONNEE A BAIL EN 1951 A MAURICE X... DEVAIT ETRE ESTIMEE COMME LIBRE DE BAIL, LE POURVOI SOUTIENT QUE LE RAPPORT PREVU A L'ARTICLE 843 DU CODE CIVIL, DONT LES JUGES DU FOND ONT FAIT APPLICATION, NE CONCERNANT QUE LES LIBERALITES OU LES AVANTAGES RECUS DU DEFUNT ET N'ETANT DU QU'AUX HERITIERS, DEVAIT ETRE EXCLU EN LA CAUSE OU LE BAIL AVAIT ETE CONSENTI PAR LES COINDIVISAIRES POSTERIEUREMENT A L'OUVERTURE DE LA SUCCESSION ;
MAIS ATTENDU QU'APRES AVOIR EXACTEMENT RELEVE QUE CE BAIL, CONSENTI SANS CONTREPARTIE SYNALLAGMATIQUE, AVAIT CONFERE A MAURICE X..., ET AUX DEPENS DE LA MASSE PARTAGEABLE SUR LAQUELLE IL N'AVAIT QUE DES DROITS EGAUX A CEUX DES FUTURS COPARTAGEANTS, UN AVANTAGE INDIRECT REPRESENTE PAR LE BAIL, LA COUR D'APPEL EN A JUSTEMENT DEDUIT QUE, POUR ASSURER L'EGALITE DES INDIVISAIRES DANS LES OPERATIONS DE PARTAGE, LA VALEUR DE CET AVANTAGE DEVAIT ETRE RAPPORTEE A LA MASSE SUCCESSORALE, PEU IMPORTANT A CET EGARD QUE LE BAIL EUT ETE CONSENTI PAR LES COHERITIERS POSTERIEUREMENT A L'OUVERTURE DE LA SUCCESSION OU PAR LE PERE LUI-MEME, SAUF LE CAS OU CELUI-CI AURAIT USE DE LA FACULTE DE DONNER A CET AVANTAGE UN CARACTERE PRECIPUTAIRE ; QUE LE MOYEN N'EST DONC PAS FONDE ;
PAR CES MOTIFS :
REJETTE LE POURVOI FORME CONTRE L'ARRET RENDU LE 30 JANVIER 1980 PAR LA COUR D'APPEL DE CAEN.