ASL and Co-ownership: 5 Things to Know

The coexistence of a Free Trade Union Association (ASL) and a co-ownership within the same real estate complex raises significant legal and practical issues. The analysis of recent case law, particularly through the VIA MARENDA case, highlights the essential points of vigilance in the management of these dual structures.

1. The Duality of Legal Regimes

The fundamental distinction between the ASL, governed by the 2004 ordinance, and the co-ownership, subject to the law of July 10, 1965, imposes a strict separation in their administration. This legal duality is manifested both in governance than in asset management. The consistent case law of the Court of Cassation underlines the importance of maintaining the autonomy of these two entities, under penalty of seeing their decisions tainted with nullity.

2. The Imperative of Accounting Separation

Financial management is a critical point in the ASL-co-ownership coexistenceThe case law of March 9, 2023 (Cass. 3rd civ., no. 21-21793) clearly establishes that the charges due to the ASL cannot be included in the provisional budget of the condominium association. This requirement for accounting separation extends to all financial flows, including in particular:

• Establishing forecast budgets
• Perception of charges
• The constitution of works funds
• Bank account management

3. The Dichotomy of Financial Obligations

The legal nature of the debts constitutes a major distinguishing element between the two structures.s condominium charges are a personal obligation of the co-owner, while ASL charges are attached to the real estate itself, in accordance with theArticle 3 of the order of July 1, 2004. This fundamental distinction has a direct impact on:

• The recovery methods
• Transfer of obligations in the event of a transfer
• Guarantees attached to receivables
• Applicable recovery procedures

4. The Principle of Charges-Services Correlation

Article 10 of the 1965 law establishes the cardinal principle of the correlation between charges and services provided in co-ownership. This principle faces particular difficulties of application in the context of coexistence with an ASL. The distribution of charges must respect:

• The objective utility of the services for each lot
• The specific nature of common equipment
• Terms of use of common areas
• Statutory distribution keys

5. Obligations of the Trustee in Dual Management

The trustee, in this context of legal duality, must exercise increased vigilance in the execution of his missions. His obligations include:

Administrative rigor:

• Maintaining strictly separate accounts
• Compliance with procedures specific to each entity
• Separate organization of assemblies
• Separate storage of archives

Financial transparency:

• Establishing separate budgets
• Clear communication of fundraising calls
• Precise justification of charges
• Traceability of financial flows

Failure to comply with these obligations may result in:

• The nullity of general meeting resolutions
• The challenge to the professional liability of the trustee
• Disputes between co-owners
• Difficulties in recovering charges

Mastering these legal and practical aspects is crucial to ensure efficient management of complex real estate complexes. Recent case law confirms the need for constant vigilance in respecting the separation between these two distinct legal entities.