You have just learned that a French notaire is handling the estate of a parent or relative — and the distribution you are being offered does not add up. Assets are missing. A will appeared from nowhere. A sibling received everything. Or the notaire stopped responding months ago, and nobody is explaining your rights in a language you understand.
This article is written for you. I am a Paris lawyer practising in business litigation and criminal business law, representing international clients before French courts. What follows is a frank account of the legal tools available to challenge a French will or an estate distribution that wrongs you — with no false reassurance about timelines, and no concealment of the traps.
Why French inheritance law catches anglophones off guard
The foundational difference is cultural before it is legal. In England, Wales, and the United States, testamentary freedom is the norm: you can leave your estate to anyone you choose. France operates on the opposite premise. The réserve héréditaire — a forced share guaranteed to children regardless of what any will says — is the bedrock of French succession law and dates back to the Napoleonic Code. It is not a default rule that can be overridden by careful drafting. It is a structural constraint on how estates are distributed, and it applies automatically.
A second source of confusion — one addressed in its own section below — is the role of the notaire, which is fundamentally different from that of a probate solicitor or an estate attorney. Understanding both points before taking any other step will save considerable time and money.
The EU Succession Regulation and the 2021 French law: a live battleground
Since Regulation No 650/2012 (known as Brussels IV) came into force on 17 August 2015, the law applicable to an estate is in principle that of the country where the deceased was habitually resident at death. A British national who lived in London and owned a flat in Paris will generally have their estate governed by English law — not French law — under this rule.
Brussels IV also allows a testator to elect the law of their nationality in their will. A British national could therefore choose English law to govern the succession of their worldwide estate, including their Parisian property.
This created a significant planning opportunity: by electing English law, a British testator could in principle disinherit their children entirely, contrary to French forced heirship rules.
France’s response came in August 2021. The legislature amended article 913 of the Civil Code to introduce a droit de prélèvement compensatoire: where the deceased or at least one of their children is an EU citizen or EU resident at death, and the applicable foreign law does not provide a forced share for children, each child may claim compensation out of the French assets of the estate, up to the amount they would have received under French forced heirship rules. The notaire is required to inform all children of this right.
The legal status of the 2021 law is actively contested. Multiple legal experts have stated that article 913 alinéa 2 appears to conflict directly with Brussels IV. The European Commission has confirmed it is investigating the matter following formal complaints. As of mid-2025, the first cases challenging the 2021 law are being heard by French courts, and a significant number of proceedings are reported to be under way. A referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union is widely anticipated but has not yet occurred. It should be noted that some lawyers defend the 2021 law on the basis that it constitutes a loi de police — a mandatory overriding rule that applies regardless of the governing law under Brussels IV — though this argument is itself contested and has not been endorsed by the courts. The outcome is genuinely uncertain.
My position: the 2021 law currently applies and cannot be ignored. Any child who is an EU citizen or EU resident can invoke it. But any beneficiary whose share is reduced by the operation of this mechanism has a credible argument — in French court proceedings — that the law should be set aside as incompatible with Brussels IV. This is genuine litigation risk that cuts both ways, depending on which side of the argument you sit.
If you are a child who has been disinherited or under-served by a will applying English law, and you or the deceased had EU connections, the 2021 law gives you a statutory claim against the French assets. If you are the beneficiary named in the will who stands to lose from this corrective mechanism, the pending European challenge is your strongest argument — and it is a live one with no settled outcome.
A note on Brexit: Brussels IV is an EU regulation. The United Kingdom left the EU in 2021 and is no longer bound by it on its own side. However, Brussels IV continues to apply in France: French notaires and French courts still use it to determine the law governing a succession involving French assets. A will election of English law made by a British national under Brussels IV — whether before or after Brexit — remains operative in French proceedings. What has changed is that UK courts no longer apply Brussels IV in their own jurisdiction. In cross-border Franco-British successions you therefore need advice that covers both systems, since the French side and the English side are no longer operating under the same framework.
The three types of French will — and what they mean for challenging
French law recognises three forms of will, each carrying a different legal weight.
The holograph will (testament olographe) is the most common and the easiest to contest. It must be entirely handwritten by the testator — not typed, not dictated — dated, and signed. No witnesses are required. Errors in any of these elements render the will formally null. Beyond formal defects, a holograph will is inherently fragile: there is no independent verification of the testator’s state of mind, no professional present to check for undue influence, and no witness to the circumstances of signing. If you suspect a holograph will was written under pressure or by someone lacking capacity, this is your most vulnerable target.
The authentic will (testament authentique) is dictated before a notaire (and either a second notaire or two witnesses). It is entered into the national registry of last wills (Fichier Central des Dispositions de Dernières Volontés, FCDDV) and is very difficult to contest on formal grounds. The notaire’s involvement creates a strong presumption of validity. To challenge an authentic will successfully, you need substantive grounds — lack of capacity, fraud, or violation of forced heirship rules — not formal defects.
The mystic will (testament mystique) is the rarest form: a sealed will handed to a notaire in the presence of witnesses without the notaire reading its contents. Formal defects in the handover ceremony can invalidate it entirely.
Finding a French will: the FCDDV holds records of all wills that have been formally registered in France — this includes all authentic wills and any holograph wills that were deposited with a notaire for safekeeping. A holograph will kept privately at home without being deposited will not appear in the FCDDV. Any notaire can query the registry after the testator’s death. If you suspect that a French will exists but has not been produced, you are entitled to request a search. If the notaire refuses or delays, a formal letter of demand is your first step; a court application is your second.
Conflicting wills and the revocation trap: under English and Welsh law, provisions favouring a former spouse are automatically void after divorce. Under French law, this is not the case. If the testator signed a will in favour of a former partner before the divorce and never expressly revoked it — in a subsequent will or by notarial declaration — that earlier will may remain valid and the ex-partner may have a claim. The phrase « I revoke all former wills and testamentary dispositions » is standard in English drafting but is not automatically included in French holograph wills. I have seen multiple cases where a later will failed to revoke an earlier instrument, leaving the estate divided in a way the testator never intended.
If you are the beneficiary of a later will and a competing claim is made under an earlier one, a court application to have the judge interpret the deceased’s true intentions is available — but it requires solid evidentiary support and is an uncertain remedy.
The forced share: what you are owed and how to recover it
The réserve héréditaire works as follows under article 912 of the Civil Code:
- One child: the forced share is one-half of the notional estate
- Two children: two-thirds shared equally between them
- Three or more children: three-quarters shared equally
The remaining quotité disponible is freely disposable. A testator can give this share to anyone: their spouse, a charity, a new partner, or any third party.
The notional estate for calculating the forced share is not limited to what existed at death. All lifetime gifts made by the deceased are added back into the calculation, regardless of when they were made. A testator cannot progressively reduce the estate through decades of gifts in order to minimise what reaches reserved heirs. This civil law rule — unlimited in time — is distinct from the fifteen-year fiscal rule applicable to inheritance tax: a gift made more than fifteen years before death may be exempt from droits de succession while still being fully integrated into the notional estate for the purpose of calculating the forced share.
If lifetime gifts or testamentary bequests have eaten into the forced share, the remedy is the action en réduction: a court action that claws back the excess. Since the 2006 reform, monetary compensation is the rule: the donee or legatee keeps the asset and pays the reserved heir an indemnity calculated on the excess. The donee may choose to return the asset in kind instead of paying the indemnity, but the reserved heir cannot demand restitution in kind — they can only claim monetary compensation.
The action en réduction has a five-year limitation period running from the opening of the succession (the date of death), or two years from the day the aggrieved heir discovers the violation — whichever is later — subject to an absolute maximum of ten years from the date of death (article 921 of the Civil Code). This is not a generous window. If you are outside France and only discovered the problem late, you need to document carefully when you first became aware of the facts that give rise to your claim.
Challenging the validity of a will
A will can be challenged on its face — not just for infringing the forced share, but for outright invalidity. The main grounds under French law are as follows.
Formal defects: a holograph will that is not entirely handwritten, is undated, or is unsigned is null. These defects are absolute — there is no judicial discretion to overlook them.
Lack of capacity: the testator must have been of sound mind at the moment of signing (sain d’esprit, article 901 of the Civil Code). Dementia, severe cognitive decline, or heavy sedation at the relevant time can nullify the will. Proof requires medical evidence from the period surrounding the signing: hospital records, GP notes, prescribed medication lists, and where necessary, expert medical opinion commissioned by the court.
Undue influence and fraud (captation d’héritage, dol): where a third party — a carer, a new partner, a dominant sibling — manoeuvred the testator into signing a will that does not reflect their genuine wishes, the will can be annulled on the ground of fraud. This is a high evidential threshold: courts require proof of deliberate manipulation, not merely a close relationship or financial dependence. Useful evidence includes testimony from professionals, telephone and message records showing patterns of isolation, financial records showing transfers of control, and contemporaneous accounts from anyone who had contact with the testator in the relevant period.
The general limitation period for nullity claims is five years from the date of death or from discovery of the defect (article 2224 of the Civil Code).
Assurance-vie: the mechanism that can remove assets from the estate
Life insurance contracts in France (assurance-vie) occupy a peculiar legal position: they are hors succession — outside the estate — and pass directly to the designated beneficiary without going through the notaire or the partition process. For legitimate planning purposes, this is a useful feature. For a cheated heir, it can function as an asset-stripping mechanism.
French law sets two distinct limits, which must not be confused.
The first applies where the policy itself was undisclosed: if an heir deliberately fails to mention the existence of an assurance-vie policy in which they were designated beneficiary, this can constitute recel successoral (discussed below) and triggers the sanctions of article 778 of the Civil Code.
The second applies where the policy is known but the premiums were disproportionate: under article L 132-13 of the Insurance Code, premiums paid into an assurance-vie policy are subject to reintegration into the notional estate where they are manifestement exagérées — manifestly excessive relative to the financial situation and insurance needs of the subscriber at the time of payment. The Cour de cassation applies this test by reference to the subscriber’s age, financial circumstances, and the proportion of their assets tied up in the policy. Where an elderly testator transferred the bulk of their liquid assets into an assurance-vie in the years before death, designating one child or a new partner as beneficiary, the reserved heirs have a viable claim under this mechanism: the excess premiums are reintegrated into the notional estate for the purpose of calculating the forced share, and the beneficiary may owe monetary compensation to the reserved heirs to the extent of the shortfall.
This distinction matters: the remedies are different, the burden of proof is different, and the two claims can be pursued simultaneously where the facts support both.
If the estate inventory submitted by the notaire does not mention any assurance-vie policies and the deceased had significant liquid assets that cannot be traced, a formal disclosure request to the notaire — or a court-ordered banking disclosure — is the first step.
Recel successoral: when an heir conceals assets
Recel successoral is defined by article 778 of the Civil Code as any act by which an heir, with fraudulent intent, breaks the equality of the partition: by concealing an asset, by denying a gift received during the deceased’s lifetime, or by misrepresenting the existence of a debt. Classic situations:
- A sibling empties the deceased’s bank accounts in the weeks before or after death
- A family member fails to disclose substantial lifetime gifts received in their favour
- Jewellery, art, or cash disappears from the estate before the inventory is taken
- A joint bank account is manipulated to shift wealth before death is declared
- An assurance-vie policy is concealed rather than disclosed to the notaire
The sanction is severe: the guilty heir forfeits their entire share of the concealed assets, must return them, and may be ordered to pay damages and interest. This is not a clawback — it is a targeted disinheritance from the specific assets they sought to steal.
Proving recel requires demonstrating fraudulent intent, which the opposing party will always contest. Courts accept circumstantial evidence: bank statements, withdrawal records, safe-deposit box access logs, inventory discrepancies, and witness testimony. The Cour de cassation has confirmed that concealment of an assurance-vie policy can constitute recel where the heir was also the designated beneficiary and acted deliberately to suppress disclosure.
One procedural constraint that is frequently overlooked: the recel claim cannot be filed as a standalone action. The Cour de cassation has consistently held that a recel claim is only admissible when combined with a concurrent action in judicial partition (Cass. 1re civ., 6 nov. 2019, n° 18-24.332, X c/ Y; Cass. 1re civ., 30 janv. 2019, n° 18-11.078, X c/ Y). If the succession has already been partitioned — even by amicable agreement — the recel action becomes irrecevable. This creates a strategic imperative: if you suspect recel, act before any partition is finalised, and ensure the recel claim is joined to the partage judiciaire proceedings from the outset.
In cases involving significant sums or organised concealment, I advise clients to consider filing a plainte pénale for abus de confiance or escroquerie in parallel with the civil proceedings. A criminal investigation compels access to banking records that no civil judge can obtain as quickly. This tactical lever — the parallel criminal track — materially changes the balance of power in hard-fought successions and is systematically underused by anglophone heirs whose legal representatives are unfamiliar with French criminal procedure.
The three choices every heir must make — and the four-month deadline
When a person dies leaving a French estate, every heir must choose between three options. This decision governs their exposure to the deceased’s debts and must be made actively.
Acceptation pure et simple: unconditional acceptance. The heir receives their share of the assets but also becomes personally liable for the deceased’s debts on their own personal assets — including assets they held before the death, beyond any amount they inherit. This is the key misunderstanding: unlike the limited liability model familiar to common law practitioners, acceptation pure et simple in France exposes the heir’s entire personal patrimony to the deceased’s creditors. Where the estate is solvent and the heir has no reason to doubt the inventory, this option is fine. Where debts are uncertain or undisclosed, it is a serious risk.
Acceptation à concurrence de l’actif net: acceptance limited to the value of the net assets. The heir’s personal assets are fully protected from the deceased’s debts. This requires a formal declaration filed at the greffe (court registry) of the competent Tribunal judiciaire. It is the only rational choice where the composition of the estate is disputed or unclear — which it almost always is in a contested succession.
Renonciation: full renunciation. The heir receives nothing and owes nothing. Renunciation cannot generally be reversed once made.
The heir has four months from the date of death to make this choice (article 771 of the Civil Code). After that period, any creditor or co-heir can serve notice requiring a decision within a further two months. Failure to decide after both periods expire results in deemed unconditional acceptance under article 780 of the Civil Code.
Anglophone heirs routinely miss this deadline — not from negligence, but because nobody explains it to them. The notaire’s introductory letter will not typically contain an urgent warning on this point. In a disputed succession, the default should always be acceptance à concurrence de l’actif net, filed promptly.
PACS partners and unmarried couples: no automatic rights
Under French law, an unmarried partner — even a long-term cohabitant — has no automatic inheritance rights whatsoever. The concubin is treated, for inheritance purposes, as a complete stranger. Without a will explicitly naming them as beneficiary, they receive nothing, regardless of the length of the relationship, shared residence, or financial contribution to the property.
A PACS (Pacte Civil de Solidarité) partner is in a better position for tax purposes only: no droits de succession are payable between PACS partners. But the PACS itself creates no inheritance rights. A PACS partner not named in a will has no claim against the estate.
This matters for disputes in two directions. If an unmarried or PACS partner was named in a will that excluded the reserved heirs, the action en réduction is available to those heirs regardless of the partner’s relationship to the deceased — the partner’s moral claim is irrelevant to the legal calculation. Conversely, if you are an unmarried partner who was not named in a will, there is generally no legal remedy in the absence of evidence of fraud or error in the will’s formation.
The notarial blockage problem
The notaire in a French succession is not your lawyer. This is the most important structural point for any anglophone heir to understand. The notaire is a public officer appointed to organise the succession in accordance with the law, and they owe duties to all parties equally. In a disputed succession, they represent no one’s interests in particular — which in practice means they cannot take sides, and therefore cannot move forward when heirs disagree.
When one heir disputes the will’s validity, the composition of the assets, or a lifetime gift that was not declared, the notaire stops. They have no power to adjudicate the dispute; that function belongs exclusively to the courts.
If the notaire is unresponsive: the first recourse is a formal complaint to the Chambre des notaires of the département where the notaire practises. The Chambre has disciplinary authority and can require the notaire to explain delays, commit to a timetable, or in extreme cases transfer the file. This is an administrative remedy that does not require litigation and is faster than it looks on paper.
If heirs are genuinely deadlocked: article 840 of the Civil Code provides that any heir may petition the Tribunal judiciaire for a judicial partition (partage judiciaire). The court appoints a notaire-liquidateur under judicial supervision with binding timetables. The blocking heir loses their veto.
If urgency is established: a référé application before the President of the Tribunal judiciaire can compel immediate action — appointing a provisional administrator, freezing assets being dissipated, or ordering the notaire to produce a draft état liquidatif within a fixed period.
The pre-litigation step that most heirs skip — but do not confuse the two mises en demeure: there are two distinct formal demands that serve different purposes, and conflating them is a practical mistake.
The first — and legally mandatory one — is a mise en demeure addressed to the co-heirs, requiring them to proceed to amicable partition. This is not merely good practice: article 1360 of the Code of Civil Procedure makes it a condition of admissibility for any partage judiciaire application. A claim filed without this prior step will be declared irrecevable. A lawyer’s letter setting out the points of disagreement and formally calling on co-heirs to respond is sufficient to satisfy this requirement.
The second is a mise en demeure addressed to the notaire, setting a deadline to reconvene the parties and produce a draft état liquidatif. This is an administrative lever, not a legal prerequisite. Notaires are not immune to professional liability, and a credibly signalled claim against their compulsory professional indemnity insurance (RPCP) concentrates minds quickly.
One critical warning on both: a mise en demeure — whether to co-heirs or to the notaire — does not interrupt the running of any limitation period. Only the service of court proceedings (assignation) produces that effect. If a limitation deadline is approaching, filing in court takes priority over any pre-litigation correspondence.
Can you sell the property before the succession is settled?
The answer is no, and this is one of the most common practical questions I receive from anglophone heirs who are managing property from abroad.
When a person dies leaving a French estate, the property falls into indivision — a form of shared ownership — among all the heirs from the moment of death. No heir can sell their share, the property, or any other estate asset unilaterally. Selling requires the agreement of all heirs, or a court order.
If one heir wishes to sell and another refuses, the route to breaking the deadlock is the partage judiciaire described above. The court can order the property sold by public auction and the proceeds distributed among the heirs proportionally. This is not a quick solution: in contested cases involving real estate, multiple heirs, or assets in different jurisdictions, nine to ten years from the initial filing to the final partition is not exceptional.
Where one of the heirs is a minor (under 18), additional constraints apply: any transaction affecting the minor’s share requires approval from a juge des tutelles (guardianship judge). This creates a further procedural layer and can substantially delay a sale.
The documents you will be asked to sign: two categories, two levels of risk
Anglophone heirs are typically presented with a sequence of documents by the notaire and invited to sign them as a matter of administration. The risks are not uniform.
First category — low immediate risk, but read carefully: the acte de notoriété identifies the heirs and their legal shares. Signing it does not bar subsequent contestation of the will or the estate composition. It is, however, a statement about the facts of the succession, and inaccuracies in it can create later complications.
Second category — high risk, never sign without independent advice: the déclaration de succession, filed with the tax authority (Direction générale des finances publiques), records the composition of the estate and the tax payable. Signing a declaration that understates the estate — even if you did so because the notaire’s inventory was incomplete — can expose you to personal tax liability and weaken any subsequent recel claim you wish to bring.
Most importantly: any état liquidatif — the document that allocates specific assets to specific heirs and distributes the estate — is a binding settlement agreement once signed by all parties. An état liquidatif signed without knowledge of concealed assets can be challenged for dol (fraud) or erreur (mistake), but this litigation is uncertain and expensive. The correct approach is to verify the estate composition independently before signing anything that purports to settle the distribution.
Do not sign any document presented as « routine » until a Paris lawyer has reviewed the situation. The notaire has no obligation to tell you that it is not routine.
Inheritance tax: what anglophone heirs will face
French inheritance tax (droits de succession) is levied on each heir’s share independently, based on their relationship to the deceased. The rates and thresholds are updated periodically by the French legislature; the figures below reflect the current position but should be verified before relying on them for planning purposes. For direct descendants (children), the rates are progressive: 5% on the first €8,072, rising to 45% on amounts exceeding €1,805,677. Each child benefits from a €100,000 allowance, renewable every fifteen years.
For more distant beneficiaries — siblings (35% to 45%), nephews and nieces (55%), step-children and unrelated beneficiaries (60% after a minimal allowance of approximately €1,594) — the rates are punishing. The PACS exception applies here: no droits de succession are payable between PACS partners.
The UK-France double taxation convention on inheritance (1963) may be relevant where tax has been paid in both countries, but its application is subject to precise conditions and is not a simple offset mechanism. Specialist cross-border tax advice is essential before assuming any relief will apply.
One point that is frequently missed: French inheritance tax is payable regardless of which law governs the succession. Brussels IV determines how the estate is distributed; it has no effect on France’s entitlement to levy succession tax on assets located in France.
What happens after you win: the post-litigation phase
Many clients focus entirely on winning the legal argument and underestimate what comes next. Even where a court judgment awards you a specific share, execution can be complicated.
Where real estate is involved, a deed of transfer (acte de partage authentique) must be executed before a notaire to perfect the transfer of ownership. The court judgment does not automatically transfer title to immovable property.
Where the opposing heir has transferred or encumbered assets during the litigation in bad faith, enforcement requires additional proceedings. Where they are insolvent, recovery may be partial or impossible.
Where the estate includes assets in multiple jurisdictions, the French judgment may need recognition in those other jurisdictions. Within the EU, recognition of succession-related judgments is complex: Brussels I bis (Regulation 1215/2012) explicitly excludes succession matters from its scope, and the position under Regulation 650/2012 (Brussels IV) varies depending on the nature of the claim. In practice, recognition in other EU member states requires case-by-case analysis. Recognition in the UK after Brexit depends on domestic English or Scottish conflict-of-laws rules and will likely require separate proceedings before the relevant court.
Jurisdiction and applicable law: an initial checklist
Which court has jurisdiction? Under Brussels IV, the courts of the country of habitual residence of the deceased at death generally have jurisdiction over the succession. French courts have subsidiary competence over applications concerning French immovable property where no court of the habitual residence has been seised (article 10 of the Regulation). In Franco-British cases, the practical forum for litigation involving a Parisian property is typically the Tribunal judiciaire de Paris.
Which law applies? The law of habitual residence governs the succession — unless a valid nationality election was made in the will. The 2021 corrective mechanism under article 913 alinéa 2 CC may give EU-connected children additional rights over French assets regardless of the governing law, subject to the pending European legal challenge.
Has a choice of law been made? A British national who elected English law in a Brussels IV-compliant will has a valid choice of law on the French side. Its effect on the forced share of EU-connected children is the live legal question discussed above.
Time limits: a summary
- Action en réduction (forced share clawback): 5 years from death, or 2 years from discovery — absolute maximum of 10 years from the date of death (article 921 CC)
- Action en nullité du testament (will nullity): 5 years from death or from discovery of the defect (article 2224 CC)
- Action en recel successoral: since the recel claim can only be raised within an ongoing partage judiciaire (itself imprescriptible), the specific running of prescription against the recel claim is legally debated; do not assume a simple five-year window applies independently
- Action en partage (compulsory partition): exercisable at any time while the indivision subsists — there is no limitation period on the right to compel a partition (article 815 CC)
- Heir’s option (accept / renounce): 4 months from death, then a further 2 months if formally pressed by a creditor or co-heir (article 771 CC)
The most important practical advice
The most costly mistake anglophone heirs make is waiting — waiting for the notaire to act, waiting for a sibling to relent, waiting to see whether the situation resolves itself. French succession law rewards those who act early and punishes those who delay. Limitation periods run silently. Assets are dissipated quietly. The longer a contested succession remains in limbo, the more entrenched every party’s position becomes.
The second most costly mistake is treating the notaire’s initial inventory as definitive. It is not. The notaire constructs their inventory from information provided by the heirs. A self-interested heir who controls access to information will produce a self-interested inventory. An independent review — through a Paris lawyer who requests banking disclosures, queries the FCDDV for undisclosed wills, and cross-checks the inventory against public property records — almost always reveals discrepancies in complex successions.
Act early. Verify independently. Sign nothing without advice.
Working with a Paris lawyer from abroad
Distance is not an obstacle. Proceedings are conducted in French; client communication is entirely in English. Hearings before the Tribunal judiciaire de Paris can be attended remotely in many procedural phases, and personal attendance is rarely required until the final stages.
The initial analysis covers the will (if any), the acte de notoriété, the notaire’s correspondence, and the deceased’s last known address — to map jurisdiction, applicable law, and limitation deadlines. This can be completed within days of receiving the documents.
If you are involved in a French inheritance dispute and are not yet represented, the time to act is now.
Valentin Simonnet is an English-speaking member of the Paris Bar, trained at University College London. He represents international clients before French courts.
