The news in brief
Ruling at first instance, the Paris judicial court held on 6 May 2026 that the division of property between unmarried, unregistered partners is governed by the law the partners chose. Without an explicit choice, that choice is presumed to be the law of the country of their first shared home.
What the judgment says
On 6 May 2026, the Paris judicial court delivered a judgment, registered under number RG 24/13773, which the Court of Cassation published on its website with the mention “particular interest” (Paris judicial court, 2026). It is a first-instance decision of the second civil chamber, handed down by a single judge.
The case does not pit two former cohabiting partners against each other. It pits a French woman against the daughter of her former partner. He, whose last home was in Venezuela, died in 2020, and his daughter is his sole heir under Venezuelan law (Paris judicial court, 2026). The claimant summoned this heir in 2024 to obtain the division of property she presents as shared: works and collections kept in several countries.
First point, jurisdiction. The heir lives outside the European Union, and no ordinary rule gave jurisdiction to the French courts. The court therefore relied on article 14 of the Civil Code, which opens the French courts to any claimant of French nationality (Civil Code, art. 14).
Second point, the applicable law. The court notes that no supranational norm governs the division of property of unregistered cohabiting partners. De facto cohabitation is not a category of French law, but the court treats it as a category of its own in international relations, since some countries give it effects on property. It then lays down its rule: the law chosen by the partners applies, and failing an explicit choice, they are presumed to have chosen the law of the country of their first shared residence. The couple had met in Venezuela and had lived together there since 2012: Venezuelan law therefore applies (Paris judicial court, 2026).
The key points
The judgment does not divide anything yet. The court notes that the claimant produced neither a certificate of custom, that is, a document setting out the content of foreign law, nor an inventory of the property. It rejects, as too imprecise, her requests to oblige the heir to provide a list of the property and to complete tax declarations in Venezuela, France and Canada.
It also rejects the expert appraisal requested to inventory and value the collections. An expert brings technical knowledge, not information that a party says it does not have: an expert appraisal cannot therefore be used to make up for the lack of evidence of the party who asks for it (Code of Civil Procedure, art. 146).
Finally, the court reopens the proceedings. It orders the claimant to produce a certificate of custom on Venezuelan law and its rules of division, the applicable texts, an inventory of the different estates of property and the documents tying each item to its estate. The case was sent back to a pre-trial management hearing set for 30 September 2026 (Paris judicial court, 2026).
How to read this decision
Three precautions are needed. The first concerns its scope: this is a first-instance judgment, handed down by a single judge, and not a ruling of the Court of Cassation. The rule it lays down, first shared residence failing a choice, is a construction of this court: it may inspire other judges, but it does not bind them. We found no indication of a possible appeal or of what followed after the September hearing.
The second concerns the context. The dispute arises after a death, against an heir, and not at a separation. The reasoning is general, but the judgment does not say whether it would hold in the same way for a break-up.
The third: the judgment details neither the content of Venezuelan law, nor the value of the property, nor the share that will go to each party.
What this changes for the reader
For a couple who live or have lived in several countries, this judgment is a reminder of a little-known point: what happens to property does not always depend on the law of the country where the dispute is settled. According to this court, it may depend on the first country where you settled together, even after a death. Yet these laws differ greatly. In France, cohabitation is a mere de facto union (Civil Code, art. 515-8): it creates neither a property regime nor an automatic division. By contrast, in New Zealand, unmarried couples who have lived together for more than three years fall under the same division rules as married couples (New Zealand Ministry of Justice, 2026).
The judgment also shows that proof weighs heavily. Whoever asks for a division must themselves establish the foreign law, draw up the inventory and prove which estate each item belongs to. A sentence written and signed by both, saying which law governs their property, avoids having to guess it before a judge. Keeping title deeds, invoices and records of what each person paid makes any division easier, especially if the other is no longer there.
What our main page adds
Our main page explains why this judgment matters. It insists on the most costly belief: ten or twenty years of living together generally create no pension, no division and no inheritance. It details the sensitive points: a home bought together, where the actual share of each must be written into the deed, death, where the survivor inherits nothing without a will and where a bequest between cohabiting partners is taxed at 60% in France, and children. It recommends five documents: a cohabitation agreement, a purchase deed stating the shares, a will, a protective mandate and up-to-date beneficiary clauses. At the other end, it presents the case of New Zealand, where three years of living together are enough for an equal division. This commentary is general and does not replace the advice of a notary or lawyer, especially when several countries are involved. See the page on cohabitation.
Going further
This news item is part of a broader topic, which our page Living together covers in detail.