Some of the Beauperthuy heirs demanded 11 M€ from the Collectivité

Charles Daniel, one of the grandsons of Pierre Daniel Beauperthuy, owned plots that had belonged to his grandfather who died in 1861. He sold some of them in 1931 and 1932 to his children including Jeanne.

55 years later, in November 1987, Jeanne decided to sell one of her plots - in other words, parcel AW 42 to Spring French Quarter - in the commune of Saint-Martin. And for several years, this parcel has been the subject of a dispute between the commune, followed by the Collectivité and other heirs.

In 1973, Pierre Daniel’s other descendants (from France, Canada, Guadeloupe) sued Charles Daniel’s  children (including Jeanne) because they disputed the sharing of the plots (which had taken place decades earlier). They claimed that Jeanne’s parcel didn’t belong to her. They then felt they had been wronged because they were not able to have and enjoy this property. In June 2000, they decided to sue the new owner of the plot - the commune.

At first, they asked that the famous deed of sale for parcel AW 42 dating from November 1987 be recognized as null as well as the restitution of the parcel. However, in 2000, the commune had already built a gendarmerie, a nursery school, a water treatment plant and a sports field in that location. Social housing units had also been built there. Since these were public buildings, the heirs waived the restitution of the parcel in November 2002, but not their legal action. In return, they asked for 11 million euros in damages. They estimated the value of the parcel with the help of a real estate agency (Orpi) on the basis of 70 euros per square meter of bare land, plus the value of the built constructions. They consider that the damage suffered cannot be less than this amount.

This amount and the lack of objectivity in its calculation method (one single real estate agency consulted) have always been challenged by the Collectivité which requested an expertise, which the court ordered. But its main line of defense was to say that there was a prescription. A first ruling was rendered to this end. It states that the introductory writ of summons dates from January 6, 2000 but that the deed of sale constituting the event giving rise to the damage goes back to September 1, 1987, and therefore that the prescription has been acquired. The heirs appealed this decision. Several appeals followed.

Last week, the Court of Cassation confirmed the first ruling. The prescription is therefore established. In other words, the Collectivité does not have to give back the parcel or pay damages to the Beauperthuy joint heirs.

The Beauperthuy heirs demanded 11 M€ from the Collectivité

Certain heirs of the estate of Pierre Daniel Beauperthuy, who died in 1861, sued the Collectivité over a parcel of land located in Spring. They claim ownership of this parcel which the Collectivité acquired from another heir of the estate.

Charles Daniel, one of the grandsons of Pierre Daniel Beauperthuy, owned plots that had belonged to his grandfather who died in 1861. He sold some of them in 1931 and 1932 to his children including Jeanne.

55 years later, in November 1987, Jeanne decided to sell one of her plots - in other words, parcel AW 42 to Spring French Quarter - in the commune of Saint-Martin. And for several years, this parcel has been the subject of a dispute between the commune, followed by the Collectivité and other heirs.

In 1973, Pierre Daniel’s other descendants sued Charles Daniel’s  children (including Jeanne) because they disputed the sharing of the plots (which had taken place decades earlier). They claimed that Jeanne’s parcel didn’t belong to her. They then felt they had been wronged because they were not able to have and enjoy this property. In June 2000, they decided to sue the new owner of the plot - the commune.

At first, they asked that the famous deed of sale for parcel AW 42 dating from November 1987 be recognized as null as well as the restitution of the parcel. However, in 2000, the commune had already built a gendarmerie, a nursery school, a water treatment plant and a sports field in that location. Social housing units had also been built there. Since these were public buildings, the heirs waived the restitution of the parcel in November 2002, but not their legal action. In return, they asked for 11 million euros in damages. They estimated the value of the parcel with the help of a real estate agency (Orpi) on the basis of 70 euros per square meter of bare land, plus the value of the built constructions. They consider that the damage suffered cannot be less than this amount.

This amount and the lack of objectivity in its calculation method (one single real estate agency consulted) have always been challenged by the Collectivité which requested an expertise, which the court ordered. But its main line of defense was to say that there was a prescription. A first ruling was rendered to this end. It states that the introductory writ of summons dates from January 6, 2000 but that the deed of sale constituting the event giving rise to the damage goes back to September 1, 1987, and therefore that the prescription has been acquired. The heirs appealed this decision. Several appeals followed.

Last week, the Court of Cassation confirmed the first ruling. The prescription is therefore established. In other words, the Collectivité does not have to give back the parcel or pay damages to the Beauperthuy joint heirs.