Since January 1, 2022, any act of joint guarantee must mention a maximum specified amount, in principal and accessories, drafted by the guarantor themselves. This obligation, stemming from ordinance n° 2021-1192 of September 15, 2021, reforming the law on securities, has changed the very logic of the commitment ceiling. The guarantor is no longer committed for an abstract duration of the lease but for a specific sum beyond which they can no longer be pursued.
Article 2297 of the Civil Code: what the reform changes for the amount of the joint guarantee
Before 2022, a landlord could draft a guarantee act without including an explicit ceiling. The guarantor then found themselves exposed to amounts that were sometimes difficult to anticipate, especially in the case of tacit renewal of the lease over several years.
Article 2297 of the Civil Code now requires that the maximum guaranteed amount appears in both numbers and letters in the act, under penalty of nullity. This is no longer a recommendation: it is a condition of validity. A joint guarantee act without this mention is legally null, and the landlord loses all possibility of taking action against the guarantor.
This mention must be handwritten (or at least drafted by the guarantor themselves in the case of a private deed). The amount recorded constitutes the absolute ceiling of the commitment, even if the accumulated rental debts exceed this amount. The landlord who sets a maximum amount in the act is bound by it just as much as the guarantor. As detailed by the website www.big-immo.com, this constraint requires careful calibration of the ceiling right from the signing of the lease.
Calculating the guarantee ceiling: rents, charges, and restoration costs
The maximum amount recorded in the act does not only correspond to unpaid rents. It must cover all potential rental debts, which includes several distinct items.
- Unpaid rents and charges for the entire foreseeable duration of the commitment (initial duration of the lease, including renewals if the act provides for it)
- Any late payment interest charged to the tenant
- Restoration costs of the housing in case of damages noted at the tenant’s departure
- Procedural costs incurred by the landlord to recover the amounts due
A landlord who sets a ceiling covering only a few months of rent risks finding themselves without recourse if the unpaid amounts extend and damages accumulate. Conversely, an excessively high amount exposes the act to a challenge for disproportion.
What rent multiple to consider in practice
The law does not set any specific scale. Field practices vary depending on the type of lease (furnished, unfurnished, mobility lease) and the duration of commitment. Some landlords calculate the ceiling by adding up all rents and charges over the duration of the lease, then adding a margin for restoration costs. Others reason in multiples of the monthly rent including charges.
No legal text prescribes a specific rent multiple to set the maximum amount. The choice is a matter of balancing sufficient coverage for the landlord and proportionality in relation to the guarantor’s income.
Disproportion of the guarantee: reduction rather than cancellation
Article 2300 of the Civil Code, stemming from the same reform of securities, has modified the treatment of guarantees deemed excessive. Before 2022, a guarantor could request the outright cancellation of their commitment if it was manifestly disproportionate to their income and assets.
Since the reform, the disproportionate guarantee is no longer canceled but reduced to a level deemed proportionate by the judge. The landlord thus retains a guarantee, albeit diminished, where they previously lost everything. For the guarantor, the risk of being committed beyond their financial capabilities remains, but the sanction is graduated.
This evolution changes the strategy of both parties. The landlord has less interest in artificially inflating the ceiling, since a judge can bring it back to a coherent sum. The guarantor, for their part, has an interest in ensuring that the amount recorded in the act remains in line with their net income and available assets.
What the courts examine
The available data do not allow for a universal ratio to be established. Judges assess on a case-by-case basis by comparing the guaranteed amount to monthly income, savings, and existing charges of the guarantor (ongoing loans, other guarantees). A guarantor already committed on another lease sees their risk of disproportion increase mechanically.
Visale Guarantee and Joint Guarantee: two distinct ceiling logics
The Visale guarantee, offered by Action Logement, operates like a guarantee provided by a public organization. Its coverage ceiling follows its own rules, different from those of a joint guarantee between individuals.
Visale covers unpaid rents and charges up to a certain number of monthly payments (the duration and maximum amount depend on the type of lease and the tenant’s profile). The landlord does not choose the ceiling: it is set by the conditions of the scheme.
In contrast, the classic joint guarantee allows the landlord to freely set the ceiling, subject to proportionality. This freedom implies a responsibility: a poorly calibrated ceiling can either leave the landlord under-covered or expose the act to judicial reduction.
A landlord cannot combine Visale and a joint guarantee for the same tenant, except in exceptional cases (student lease or apprentice in certain cases). The choice between the two mechanisms depends on the tenant’s profile, the duration of the lease, and the level of rent charged.
The maximum amount of a joint guarantee is not a standard figure applicable to all rentals. It is a negotiated sum, recorded in the act, which depends on the rent, the planned duration of commitment, additional charges, and the financial capacity of the guarantor. An act without a specified amount is null since 2022, and a disproportionate amount will be reduced by the judge rather than canceled. The drafting of this mention deserves as much attention as the rest of the lease.
