The legitimacy of surveyors recognized in matters of co-ownership by the Court of Cassation

Why is this judgment of the Court of Cassation important?

According to Bertrand Périer, "Several elements reflect the importance of this ruling. First, the fact that the Court of Cassation decided to publish it in its Bulletin. The Court of Cassation only publishes in its Bulletin those rulings that it considers to have principle-setting value beyond the specific case they decide. This represents a very small minority of its rulings. The publication shows that this is not a purely case-specific decision. Another element: the Court of Cassation drafted a summary to accompany the publication of this ruling. This is, in a way, the Court of Cassation's own summary of its ruling." It is quite clear since, after citing articles 1 1° and 2 of the law of May 7, 1946, she writes: "The Court of Appeal violates these texts when, in order to say that a plan annexed to the deeds of a co-ownership is regular and binding on successive co-owners, it holds that it matters little that it was not drawn up by a surveyor, whereas the plan annexed to the deeds of co-ownership delimits the land rights of the co-owners."

With this summary, does the Court of Cassation not intend to give a very general scope to its judgment?

According to Attorney Bertrand Périer: “Indeed. This ruling therefore applies to all plans attached to co-ownership deeds. Thus, when the plan attached to the co-ownership deeds delimits land rights, it can only be the work of a land surveyor. Otherwise, it is unenforceable. The generality of the terms used shows that the Court of Cassation does not intend to limit this solution to horizontal co-ownership or to the very specific situation of this case, namely a two-owner co-ownership. The solution is applicable to all co-ownerships regardless of their nature or the number of co-owners…”

Does this judgment in fact limit the monopoly of surveyors to plans delimiting land rights?

According to Bertrand Périer: “Absolutely. Conversely, plans that do not delimit land rights, for example because they are not attached to the deeds of co-ownership or not published, do not fall under the monopoly. Only attached plans that delimit land rights do fall under the monopoly. This decision does not create a “new monopoly,” as I have read. It is simply the application to co-ownership of a very old principle according to which any plan intended to delimit land rights can only be drawn up by a land surveyor. There is nothing new here! The Court of Cassation is merely drawing the consequences of Articles 1.1° and 2 of the 1946 law: since the law reserves the preparation of documents delimiting land rights to land surveyors, plans attached to the deeds of co-ownership with such a delimitation purpose necessarily fall under this monopoly.”

So what are the purposes of this monopoly?

According to Maître Bertrand Périer: "The reasons and justifications for this monopoly are well known and have long been established by case law: it is a matter of reserving for a regulated, controlled profession, the exercise of which requires the acquisition and maintenance of competence and respect for a code of ethics, the acts delimiting land, in order to secure and protect the right of ownership and the rights of the owners."

More than ever, surveyors are asserting themselves as recognized and legitimate actors to carry out all the missions inherent in land law. For individuals, it is also the guarantee of being able to rely on a reliable expert who secures their rights as owners.