A typical dispute arising from unpaid rent following the health crisis
By an interim judgment of 4 May 2026, the Bonneville Judicial Court was seized of a new dispute between the owners of a holiday residence and the Pierre & Vacances group. Whilst the court has not yet ruled on the merits of the case, the decision is of significant procedural interest regarding the transfer of commercial leases between companies within the group.
The claimants, owners of a flat and a cellar within a holiday residence operated under the Pierre & Vacances brand, had entered into a guaranteed commercial lease with the company PV Résidences & Resorts France. The lease, signed on 14 January 2021 with retroactive effect from 1 October 2020, provided for a guaranteed annual rent of €12,593 excluding tax.
Believing that the rent had not been paid in full since the health crisis, the landlords took legal action against PV Holding, which had succeeded to the rights of PV Résidences & Resorts France, in order to obtain payment of the outstanding sums.
Over €15,000 in rent claimed by the owners
The owner couple argued that the operator had suspended rent payments between October 2020 and June 2021 and then made irregular payments until October 2024. According to their calculations, after taking into account certain works for which they were liable, a balance of €15,355.92 remained unpaid.
They therefore sought a joint and several order against PV Holding and PV Exploitation France to pay this sum, plus statutory interest from the date of a formal notice sent in December 2023. In the alternative, they sought payment of at least €7,586.16 corresponding to rent remaining unpaid between August 2022 and October 2024.
The landlords relied on the now well-established case law of the Court of Cassation, according to which administrative closures linked to Covid-19 do not constitute either a loss of the leased property within the meaning of Article 1722 of the Civil Code or a breach by the landlord of their obligation to deliver the property. In their view, no suspension of rent was therefore legally justified.
They also contested certain compensation mechanisms applied by the operator in respect of service charges or works, arguing that these deductions were not duly justified.
Pierre & Vacances invokes the transfer of the lease to PV Exploitation France
In response to these claims, the companies of the Pierre & Vacances group developed a two-pronged defence. They first argued that PV Holding could no longer be held liable for payment, as the lease had been transferred to PV Exploitation France following a partial asset transfer agreement signed on 16 December 2020.
According to them, all leases relating to the operation of Pierre & Vacances residences had been transferred to this new company, which had become the sole holder of the rights and obligations arising from the disputed lease.
On the merits, they argued that the rent had been paid in full after offsetting certain charges and works borne by the lessors. They also claimed that the deduction of €7,769.76 corresponded to the periods of administrative closure of the residence during the health crisis, a period during which the obligation to pay rent had been suspended.
The defendant companies thus reiterated the arguments already put forward in numerous Covid-related disputes, based on the partial loss of the leased property, the impossibility of operating the premises and the defence of non-performance.
The court identified a preliminary difficulty: who is actually the tenant under the lease?
Even before examining the issue of unpaid rent, the court noted a fundamental difficulty: the identity of the actual tenant had not been sufficiently established.
The judges noted that the lease did indeed contain a clause authorising its assignment by the tenant under certain conditions. They also noted that the voluntary intervention of PV Exploitation France was admissible.
However, the defendant companies have not produced the partial asset transfer agreement on which they rely. Crucially, the disputed lease was signed in January 2021, i.e. after the date of the agreement in question. The court therefore observes that there is currently no evidence to show that this specific lease was in fact transferred to PV Exploitation France.
The judges also note that the landlords are seeking a joint and several judgment against PV Holding and PV Exploitation France without specifying the exact legal basis for such joint liability.
A reopening of the proceedings before any decision on the rent
Considering that these preliminary issues are decisive for the outcome of the dispute, the court refuses to rule immediately on the financial claims. It orders the proceedings to be reopened and invites PV Exploitation France to produce the partial asset transfer agreement as well as all evidence establishing the transfer of the disputed lease.
At the same time, the lessors are invited to specify the legal basis for their claim for joint and several liability and to explain on what grounds they are also seeking to hold PV Exploitation France liable.
All claims are therefore reserved and the case adjourned to a later hearing. This decision illustrates the importance, in disputes concerning holiday residences, of verifying precisely the transfer of commercial leases during internal restructuring of operating groups before addressing the issue of rent payments.
(0.00 out of 5)