It’s a bit like the inversion of babies in the maternity ward, in real estate fashion. A nightmare that no one wants to face but which burst into the daily lives of Béatrice and Lionel Harpon, as recounted The Parisian. It was when he wanted to put his house in Sevran (Seine-Saint-Denis), acquired in 2015, up for sale that the couple discovered to their amazement that they had never owned this house. It was the real estate agent in charge of the sale who discovered the problem, even though he had found clients ready to pay 242,000 euros to buy the premises, who uncovered this inconsistency which should have been pointed out by the notaries.
The couple of civil servants who were planning to move had never paid attention to the fact that they occupied lot 152 of section BX of their city’s land register even though their property title mentions parcel 151, as explained The Parisian . And unfortunately for them, it is not a simple typing error but rather an inversion with much more serious consequences. The low property tax (900 euros) could have alerted them, but it was their first real estate property and they had no idea of the rates.
Violation of consent
It appears that the error dates back to 1949, when the disputed land was divided into two plots after the divorce of the two owners. And therefore, if there was an inversion it is because Béatrice and Lionel’s neighbors also have a problem… This is indeed the case, since the owner of the adjoining plot, a retiree living Roubaix had the small wooden house that was there razed with the idea of putting the land up for sale. He discovered this imbroglio since 2017, preventing him from putting up for sale a property that he does not own. Both parties are blocked for the moment while awaiting regularization on both sides.
A situation which could lend itself to a definitive exchange of property provided for by the Civil Code. For his part, Me Gabriel Neu-Janicki, a lawyer specializing in real estate law in Paris, believes that in the event of an agreement between the owners of the two adjacent plots, it is sufficient for the land surveyor to come and note this common agreement to rectify the error. and make the cadastral survey coincide with reality. Otherwise, “recourse to a surveyor through legal channels will be necessary to carry out a new demarcation of the contested plot”.
Furthermore, to unblock the situation and “stimulate all stakeholders”the lawyer believes that there are multiple avenues. Firstly, the couple of civil servants could turn against the sellers who gave them their house, “by requesting the nullity of the sale for defects in consent and obtaining reimbursement of the price paid”.
Me Neu-Janicki clarifies: “Indeed, according to the deed he would have been paid for the sale of plot 151 which does not belong to him. For the record, according to article 1144 of the Civil Code, the time limit for the action for nullity only runs, in the event of error or fraud, from the day on which they were discovered. Thus, from the day they discovered this situation, the couple has a period of 5 years to act.”
And beyond this first solution, he recalls that there is a way to turn against the notaries who ensured the sale without the legal effectiveness that is promised and to turn against the insurance of the notaries. Other avenues: the couple could also try to have their credit canceled and obtain reimbursement of the sums due as well as interest or even turn against the previous real estate agent who served as an intermediary and also did not carry out all the checks required.