Nexity Studea: Summary of the Versailles Court of Appeal ruling of May 29, 2018 (no. 17/02845)
Background: Mr. Pasquale C., owner of a studio apartment and a parking lot in a residence, had leased these properties to Nexity Studea, a company specializing in the management of student residences. In 2011, Mr. C. served notice on Nexity Studea, refusing to renew the commercial lease and offering to pay an eviction indemnity. Nexity Studea then took the case to court, contesting the proposed compensation and claiming a much higher eviction indemnity.
Decision of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nanterre: The court awarded Nexity Studea an eviction indemnity of 16,643.70 euros, far short of the company’s claims, and set an occupancy indemnity of 3,915 euros per year.
Decision of the Court of Appeal: The Versailles Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the Nanterre High Court, rejecting Nexity Studea’s claim that the eviction compensation should be set at a much higher amount, based on the overall value of its business. The Court ruled that Nexity Studea‘s business, although based on a special tax arrangement, could not justify compensation beyond the partial loss of its goodwill.
Legal commentary on compensation
This ruling highlights several crucial aspects of commercial lease law and the valuation of goodwill, particularly in the context of student residences.
1. The question of the economic unit of operation:
Nexity Studea argued that the commercial leases as a whole constituted an indivisible economic unit, justifying eviction compensation based on the overall value of this goodwill. The Court rejected this approach, confirming that compensation must be limited to the partial loss specifically linked to the lots in question, irrespective of the alleged economic unity of the residence as a whole. This point clearly illustrates the limits imposed by the courts on the excessive valuation of goodwill in the context of commercial leases.
2. The hotel method:
The application of the hotel method to value eviction compensation was discussed but ultimately rejected. The Court adopted a more modest approach, refusing to base the calculation of compensation on hotel standards for properties in the student residence sector, which is often less lucrative and more specific.
3. Monovalent premises:
The monovalence of the premises, i.e. their exclusive allocation to a single use (in this case, a student residence), was recognized, but the Court ruled that this did not entitle the tenant to an exceptional valuation of the occupation indemnity (rent since the notice).
4. Tax and legal aspects:
The Court emphasized that the advantageous tax framework enjoyed by Nexity Studea, based in particular on tax exemption schemes, could not justify compensation based on tax or financial criteria not provided for in commercial lease law.
Conclusion:
This ruling underlines the need for courts to be vigilant in the face of attempts by operators of serviced residences to maximize compensation at the end of commercial leases, by insisting on strict application of the principles of goodwill valuation and measured consideration of the specific features of para-hotel activities.
Feel free to ask us any questions you may have, free of charge, using the contact form here at the bottom of the page.
(0.00 out of 5)