Maître²: the bi-monthly review

‍Coliving: No specific status for coliving! What to remember from the ministerial response published in the Official Journal on 27 January 2026

‍

The ministerial response published in the Official Journal on January 27, 2026 is clear: the minister in charge of cities and housing believes that there is no need to create a specific legal status for coliving. It is time to simplify existing law rather than to establish an ad hoc regime.

‍

However, coliving is not a gray area. When the home is the main residence of the occupant, the law of 6 July 1989 applies in full, including in terms of rent control. As for expenses, the service residence regime already provides for safeguards, in particular as to the nature of the services that may be invoiced.

‍

In practice, the challenge is therefore not the absence of rules, but the correct legal qualification of the selected arrangement.

‍

And in any event, the Minister recalls that the Government pays particular attention to this type of housing and to strict compliance with the applicable framework.

‍

Link: https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/17/questions/QANR5L17QE8053

Tax Immo: Exclusion of real estate activities (promotion/property dealer) from activities eligible for the “150-0 B ter” employment

As a reminder, the transfer-transfer referred to in article 150-0 B ter of the General Tax Code is: 1/ contribution by the investor of shares to his holding; 2/ transfer by the holding company of the shares that were brought to him. With fiscal neutrality with an obligation to reinvest by the holding company.

‍

Until now, reinvestment could be made in real estate development and property trading activities.

‍

This will no longer be the case for sales by the holding company (transaction 2/ above) carried out as of February 21, 2026.

‍

There is therefore still a “stock” of reinvestment bonds that can be directed to promotional and property trading activities, making it possible to continue the creation of new vehicles in the short term.

‍

The hotel business (walls and funds) remains, in all cases, eligible for employment!

‍

Link: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000053542872?isSuggest=true

‍

Photovoltaic panels: The qualification of photovoltaic panels with regard to the ten-year guarantee. Feedback on the judgment delivered by the Court of Cassation on 19 February 2026

‍

The legal issue at the heart of this case concerns the qualification of photovoltaic panels as equipment elements subject or not to the ten-year warranty. More specifically, it is a question of determining whether these panels constitute exclusively professional equipment elements that do not contribute to the construction function (solidity, constituent elements or destination), which would therefore be excluded from the ten-year guarantee pursuant to article 1792-7 of the Civil Code. The Caen Court of Appeal, in its judgment of October 3, 2023, held that the photovoltaic installation constituted a complete set including the solar electricity production system and the steel tray cover comprising this system. She had deduced that this installation did not have the exclusive function of producing energy, but also of ensuring the coverage of the pre-existing building. The Court of Appeal had therefore considered that the photovoltaic panels were not elements of equipment excluded from the ten-year warranty within the meaning of article 1792-7 of the Civil Code. The Court of Cassation quashed and annulled the judgment of the Court of Appeal, considering that the Court of Appeal did not provide a legal basis for its decision. She criticises the Court of Appeal for not having sufficiently established that” the photovoltaic panels at the origin of the disorders, although fixed to the steel tanks constituting the roof of the building, were not elements of equipment that did not have a closed or covered function allowing exclusively the exercise of a professional activity of production and sale of energy ”.

‍

Link: https://www.courdecassation.fr/decision/6997fe49cdc6046d470bef69

‍

Risk status : The update between promise and sale is not optional. This is what the third civil chamber of the Court of Cassation recalls in a judgment of 19 February 2026

‍

When a risk prevention plan is approved after the signing of the promise to sell but before the reiteration by authentic act, the seller is required to append to the act an updated risk statement. Otherwise, the sale may be cancelled and damages may be awarded.

‍

This was confirmed by the third civil chamber in a judgment of 19 February 2026 (no. 24-10.524, FS-B), by censuring the Court of Appeal, which believed it could avoid this requirement on the grounds that the property was already classified as a flood zone at the time of the promise. The transition from a prescribed PPRI to an approved PPRI — which gives it the value of a public utility easement — constitutes a worsening of the situation of the property that purchasers are entitled to know before signing.

‍

A point of vigilance to be systematically integrated into the follow-up of cases between promise and reiteration.

‍

Link: https://www.courdecassation.fr/decision/6996b63ccdc6046d47eba5f0

‍

Factoring exchange platform and invoice transfer: what are the means of opposition for the project owner or the main contractor? Analysis of recent case law

‍

With the emergence of factoring platforms, some construction companies in cash flow difficulties are tempted to transfer invoices for work services to third parties, with the platform manager acting as a mandatary to inform the project owner or the main contractor that his claims have been transferred and to question him at the same time about his intentions to oppose exceptions of non-performance to the settlement of these via a questionnaire sent to one of his employees.

‍

However, in some cases, the contracting authority or the main contractor transferred is confronted with defects, disorders or non-performances committed by the transferor, which legitimately lead him to rely on an exception of non-performance by the subcontractor or compensation between their mutual claims and debts.

‍

This type of situation can be a source of difficulty when the main contractor is required to pay said invoices by the manager of the factoring platform and the assignees of said claims. This then raises the question of the validity of the exceptions of non-performance invoked by the main contractor to prevent the settlement of claims.

‍

Faced with a dispute relating to this situation, the Nanterre TAE had the opportunity to reject the request for conviction formulated by an assignee company that acquired invoices on a factoring platform on the ground that the transferee company did not provide proof that the person who completed the audit or the questionnaire sent by the platform had the quality and authority to do so (TAE Nanterre, January 8, 2025, Sté Bert Notte v. Sté Bc.n. (Bateg), no. 2023F00163. - TAE Nanterre, January 8, 2025, Sté Van Hove v. Sté Bc.n. (Bateg), n° 2023F00167. - TAE Nanterre, January 8, 2025, Sté Arcetis v. Sté Bc.n. (Bateg), n° 2023F00161).

‍

In the reasoning of the judge, the obligation to settle claims in respect of assigned invoices is only valid if there is an express waiver by the assigned debtor to rely on one of the exceptional hypotheses of non-performance against the assignor, in particular by indicating in the questionnaire that “none”guarantee, withholding or compensation is not provided for on the transferred invoices“.

‍

In this context, it is possible for the project owner or the main contractor whose debts have been assigned to validly oppose one or more exceptions of non-performance by showing that they relate to events prior to the date of notification of the assignment of the claims. In particular, the project owner or the main contractor may validly file an exception of non-performance if he demonstrates the absence of the start of execution of the work or the abandonment of the subcontractor's site (vSee in this sense, CA Paris, Pôle 5, ch. 5, May 23, 2024, no. 21/05858), which then makes it possible to consider that the invoices issued are null and void.

‍

Moreover, the project owner or the main contractor can validly oppose the fact that the person who completed the questionnaire did not have the power or authority to engage the structure, so the answers given to the latter are devoid of any binding force and the waiver is not granted in favor of the assignee. In this case, the renunciation has no legal value in the absence of the power/competence of the person who responded to the audit/questionnaire sent.

‍

Conversely, if it is admitted that the main contractor has expressly waived the right to rely on an exception of non-performance inherent in the debt resulting from the faults of its assigning subcontractor, he will have no choice but to pay the amount of the assigned claims (see to this effect: CA Versailles, ch. 1-4, May 26, 2025, no. 22/05072). It will then be appropriate to summon the subcontractor under forced intervention and to file a warranty appeal against him in order to obtain his order to obtain his order to pay the various amounts due in respect of his contractual breaches, which may, if necessary, come as compensation for the invoices whose payment is claimed, in particular if it is shown that the breaches or difficulties in execution committed by the latter are shown to have occurred prior to the date of notification of the transfer of invoices sent by the platform manager. factoring.