Article 924-4 of the Civil Code organizes the right for a reserved heir to pursue a gifted asset even when it is in the hands of a third-party purchaser, when the donee cannot compensate for the affected reserved share. This mechanism extends the action for reduction beyond the family circle and creates a concrete risk for anyone purchasing an asset that comes from a donation.
Hereditary reserve and disposable portion: the foundation of the action for reduction
Before discussing the functioning of article 924-4, two concepts must be understood. The hereditary reserve is the portion of the deceased’s estate that the law mandatorily allocates to their descendants (or, in the absence of descendants, to the surviving spouse). The disposable portion is the remaining share, which the deceased can freely dispose of through donation or will.
You may also like : Everything You Need to Know About Huawei ID: Uses, Creation, and Benefits for Users
Since the law of June 23, 2006, only descendants are reserved heirs. The rate of the disposable portion varies depending on the number of children involved in the succession: half of the estate with one child, one third with two children, one quarter with three or more children.
When a donation or legacy exceeds the disposable portion, reserved heirs have the action for reduction to recover what encroaches on their reserve. A detailed analysis of this mechanism, particularly the one proposed in the article 924-4 of the civil code on Cariboost, shows that this action is not limited to a simple recourse among heirs.
Action for reduction against a third-party purchaser: the mechanism of article 924-4
The general principle is established by article 924 of the Civil Code: reduction is primarily realized through the payment of a reduction indemnity by the donee or legatee. The gifted asset generally remains with the person who received it, provided they financially compensate for the encroachment on the reserve.
Article 924-4 comes into play when this compensation becomes impossible. If the donee has resold the asset to a third party and is insolvent (or refuses to pay the indemnity), the reserved heir can then turn directly against the third party holding the asset. The text provides for a subsidiary action: it only arises if the donee cannot compensate the heir.
In practice, the third-party purchaser of real estate resulting from a donation may be required to either pay the reduction indemnity or return the asset itself. This threat weighs on the legal security of any transaction involving a gifted asset.
Conditions for exercising the action against the third party
The action of article 924-4 requires the fulfillment of several elements:
- The donor has passed away and the succession is open, making the action for reduction admissible.
- The donation exceeds the disposable portion and encroaches on the hereditary reserve of at least one descendant.
- The donee is unable to pay the reduction indemnity (insolvency, lack of sufficient assets).
- The third party still holds the asset at the time of the action, or an asset acquired in replacement of the initially gifted asset.
The subsidiary nature of this action is crucial. An heir cannot choose to act against the third party for convenience: they must first exhaust their recourse against the donee.
Distinction between action for reduction and action for revaluation: a common trap
A common confusion is to treat the action for revaluation of a payment or reduction indemnity as an extension of the action for reduction. Michel Grimaldi, in the Quarterly Review of Civil Law, emphasized that the action for revaluation is legally distinct from the action for reduction.
The difference has direct consequences. The prescription regime, the starting point of the time limit, and the legal qualification are not the same. An heir who confuses the two risks facing a plea of inadmissibility for acquired prescription, while believing they still have recourse.
This distinction also alters the risk analysis for third-party purchasers and donees. The reduction indemnity set on the day of the division can be contested later on the grounds of revaluation, but according to specific rules that do not fall under article 924-4.
Risks for the purchaser of an asset resulting from a donation
The parliamentary question posed to the National Assembly (written question no. 18076) summarizes the practical issue well. The notary must inform the purchaser of the risk of action for reduction or reclamation when the sold asset comes from a donation. In practice, several obstacles complicate this precaution:
- The seller (donee) may refuse to seek the agreement of other presumed heirs, or they may be untraceable.
- Buyers, unfamiliar with the concepts of reserve and disposable portion, underestimate the extent of the risk.
- As long as the donor is alive, the action for reduction cannot be exercised, creating a sometimes lengthy period of legal uncertainty.
A cautious purchaser will systematically ask the notary to verify the ownership origin of the asset, the existence of a prior donation, and the situation of potential reserved heirs. The absence of these verifications may engage the professional liability of the notary.
The role of the notary in risk prevention
The notary has an obligation to provide accurate information about the risks attached to the act. When an asset comes from a donation, they must draw the purchaser’s attention to the possibility of an action based on article 924-4. This duty of advice does not disappear if the donor is still alive: the future risk must be indicated.
Article 924-4 of the Civil Code remains one of the least known texts in inheritance law, even though it directly affects the security of real estate transactions involving gifted assets. The precise qualification of the action taken (reduction, reclamation, revaluation) determines the applicable regime and the chances of success of the recourse. Verifying the ownership origin of an asset before any purchase remains the first concrete protection against this type of litigation.