Home Loan Transfer: Can You Keep Your Loan When Changing Property?

What Is a Home Loan Transfer?

A loan transfer (also called loan portability) is the operation by which a borrower keeps an existing home loan while changing the property financed. In concrete terms: you sell the home bought with the loan, you buy another, and you “attach” the same loan, on the same terms, to this new purchase.

The appeal is obvious in a context of high rates. A loan taken out at 1.3% when the market now offers 3.5% represents a considerable saving over the remaining years. Rather than paying off this advantageous loan and taking out a new one, many borrowers try to preserve it. The idea is legitimate, but it runs up against a simple principle that too many borrowers discover too late.

Is Transferring a Loan to a New Property a Right?

The answer is clear: no. No provision of the Consumer Code (code de la consommation) grants the borrower a right to transfer or “port” the loan to another property. The provisions on home loans (Articles L. 313-1 et seq. of the Consumer Code) govern the formation of the contract, its performance and early repayment, but they establish no mechanism for substituting a property at the borrower’s unilateral initiative.

On the contrary, any change to the “terms on which the loan was obtained” (amount, rate, term, security) in principle requires the issue of a new prior offer (Article L. 313-27 of the Consumer Code). A transfer that involves adapting the security to a new property is therefore often analysed, legally, as a new loan.

The Portability Clause: The Condition for Everything

Transfer is possible only if the loan contract expressly provides for it, by means of a portability clause (clause de transférabilité), and on the terms that clause sets (value of the new property, ceiling, time limit, fees, etc.). Such clauses exist, but they are far from systematic, and they almost always reserve the bank’s prior consent.

Without such a stipulation, the bank is in no way obliged to accept the transfer. Recent case law clearly confirms this: in a case where borrowers, having partly repaid their loan with the sale price, argued that an agreement to “restructure the loan” had been reached, the Pau Court of Appeal held that mere email exchanges mentioning a restructuring create no right to a transfer or novation: without a clear commitment from the bank, the loan remains governed by its original terms, and the institution retains the ability to accelerate the loan in the event of an unauthorised sale (CA Pau, 2e ch., 31 March 2026, No. 24/02619).

Not to Be Confused with the Buyer Taking Over the Loan

There is a neighbouring but quite distinct operation: the takeover of the loan by the buyer of the property. Where the person buying your home is substituted in your obligations to the bank and takes over the loan on the same terms, the French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) accepts that this operation does not require a new prior offer, provided that the nature, purpose and repayment terms remain unchanged and have been brought to the buyer’s attention (Cass. 1re civ., 28 September 2004, No. 01-14.744).

But beware: this scenario concerns the transfer of the loan with the property, to the new buyer, and not the retention of the loan by the original borrower, on another property. These are two radically different things. Takeover by the buyer therefore establishes no right to keep your advantageous loan for a later personal transaction.

How Does a Loan Transfer Work in Practice?

Since this is not a right, everything depends on the negotiation with the bank. In practice, two main routes make it possible to preserve, in whole or in part, the benefit of the existing loan:

These two routes are not mutually exclusive. Pursuing them side by side is often the most prudent strategy: the transfer of the security preserves the rate, while competing refinancing offers secure a way out and strengthen your negotiating position.

What Are the Risks of Reselling a Financed Property Without Telling Your Bank?

This is the most delicate situation, and yet a common one. The borrower sells the property, collects the price, and keeps the loan without telling the bank, hoping to “recycle” it on another project. But this silent sale is not neutral: it runs head-on into the undertakings given in the contract.

The “Negative Covenants” of a Guaranteed Loan

Loans secured by a guarantee from a surety body (such as Crédit Logement) almost always contain so-called “negative covenants” (sûretés négatives). The borrower undertakes not to sell, lease, mortgage or otherwise encumber the financed property without the lender’s consent, and to apply the sale price to repayment of the loan in the event of a sale. These undertakings are aimed precisely at protecting the bank and the surety body.

Selling without consent, and without applying the price to repayment, is therefore a breach of contract. The courts see it as a serious default, and not a mere incident that can be put right: the Paris Court of Appeal upheld an acceleration pronounced because of the “disposal” of the property, holding that the sale without the bank being paid off justified the demand for immediate repayment (CA Paris, Pôle 5 ch. 6, 21 February 2024, No. 22/03333). Similarly, the Pau Court of Appeal confirmed an acceleration based on failure to comply with the undertaking to inform the lender and the guarantor and to repay in the event of a sale (CA Pau, 2e ch., 7 March 2024, No. 22/03293).

Why Is a Sale “Without the Bank’s Knowledge” Materially Possible?

Many are surprised that such a sale can go through without the bank objecting. The answer lies in the nature of the security, and this is where the whole difference between a mortgage loan and a guaranteed loan lies.

In a mortgage loan (or one backed by a lender’s lien (privilège de prêteur de deniers)), the security is the subject of a published registration at the land registry (service de la publicité foncière). The notary handling the sale is then required to consult the property register: the notary discovers the registration and cannot complete the deed without obtaining from the bank a release (mainlevée), that is, its formal agreement to strike off the security. In practice, the bank is therefore necessarily notified of the sale and, in return for the release, demands repayment of the loan out of the price. Selling on the quiet is almost impossible here.

In a guaranteed loan (guarantee from a body such as Crédit Logement), the mechanism is quite different. The security rests on the guarantor’s undertaking, often accompanied by a mere unpublished promise of mortgage: no registration has been made against the property. When the notary consults the property register, there is therefore nothing to lift. Nothing materially blocks the sale, which can be completed without the bank being informed. This is precisely what explains why borrowers resell a property financed by a guaranteed loan without their bank finding out, at least initially.

Acceleration of the Loan and Its Financial Consequences

If the bank finds out, it can pronounce acceleration of the loan (déchéance du terme): the entire outstanding capital becomes immediately due, by simple notification. Added to this, most often, are:

• a contractual indemnity, generally set at 7% of the outstanding capital (plus accrued interest and sometimes late-payment interest);
• late-payment interest at the contractual rate until payment.

Good news, however: this 7% indemnity is not untouchable. The judge may reduce it if it is manifestly excessive (Article 1231-5 of the Civil Code). In the aforementioned case of 21 February 2024, the Paris Court of Appeal thus reduced a 7% penalty clause to €500, while upholding the principle of acceleration. In addition, the capitalisation of interest is governed by the protective provisions on home loans (Articles L. 313-49 et seq. of the Consumer Code), which limit the indemnities and costs that can be demanded.

Is the Sale Clause Unfair?

This is where the most important legal nuance lies, and the most misunderstood. There is a genuine tension in the case law between two types of acceleration clause.

Acceleration clauses for non-payment are frequently held to be unfair. The French Supreme Court considers that a clause allowing the bank to demand the whole loan after a mere formal notice, without notice of a reasonable length, creates a significant imbalance to the detriment of the consumer and must be deemed unwritten (Cass. 1re civ., 29 May 2024, No. 23-12.904, published; following Cass. 1re civ., 22 March 2023, No. 21-16.044). Several courts of appeal now apply this line firmly (CA Rennes, 2e ch., 17 February 2026, No. 25/01755; CA Douai, 23 October 2025, No. 24/00763; CA Paris, Pôle 1 ch. 10, 8 January 2026, No. 25/06636). The consequence is heavy for the bank: deprived of acceleration, it can claim only the unpaid instalments, without the 7% indemnity.

But clauses penalising the sale of the property without consent are generally upheld. The review rests on the criteria laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Banco Primus judgment (CJEU, 26 January 2017, C-421/14, clarified by CJEU, 8 December 2022, C-600/21): the judge checks in particular whether the breach concerns an essential obligation and whether it is sufficiently serious. Yet the sale of the property that secures the loan goes to the heart of the contract. The courts therefore consider that this clause does not create a significant imbalance: the default is serious and final, and the bank has no remaining footing in a property that it no longer finances.

One defence argument nonetheless remains useful, to be kept for the litigation phase: the cause of the acceleration must correspond to that of the formal notice. A bank that served formal notice for unpaid instalments cannot then rely on the sale to justify acceleration (CA Douai, 23 October 2025, No. 24/00763). Conversely, the clause penalising inaccurate information provided on taking out the loan was held not to be unfair, since it concerns decisive elements and leaves the borrower the possibility of applying to the court (Cass. 1re civ., 20 January 2021, No. 18-24.297).

Undeclared Resale: What Is the Risk of FICP Registration?

Many borrowers fear, rightly or wrongly, registration on the FICP (the national register of household credit repayment incidents, kept by the Banque de France). Here is the precise answer.

The FICP records only qualifying payment incidents (Article L. 751-1 of the Consumer Code). Acceleration pronounced on a ground unrelated to a payment default, such as the resale of the property, is therefore not in itself a ground for registration. What triggers the registration is the non-payment of the balance that has fallen due after acceleration.

The Right Reflex: Regularise Before Acceleration

A clear strategy emerges from all of the above for the borrower who has sold (or is considering selling) without applying the price to repayment: take the initiative to regularise, before any acceleration, rather than waiting for the bank to discover the sale.

Why is the urgency real? Because everything is decided while the file is still “clean”. Once acceleration has been pronounced and, even more so, an FICP registration activated, both exits close: refinancing by a competitor becomes impossible, and so does the negotiated route, the bank having chosen confrontation. Opening the discussion early is a way of guarding against this deadlock.

In concrete terms, it is better to arrive with a solution already worked out: the replacement property, the new security offered (transfer of the guarantee or mortgage), and acceptance of bearing the costs. A forward-looking request for regularisation, made in good faith, has a far better chance of success than the forced discovery of a concealed sale. Any correspondence with the bank benefits from being carefully drafted: this is a point on which the support of a lawyer is valuable.

FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions About Loan Transfers

References: Consumer Code, Arts. L. 313-1, L. 313-27, L. 313-47, L. 313-49 et seq., L. 751-1; Civil Code, Arts. 1231-5, 1329 et seq.; CJEU, 26 January 2017, Banco Primus, C-421/14; CJEU, 8 December 2022, C-600/21; Cass. 1re civ., 29 May 2024, No. 23-12.904; Cass. 1re civ., 22 March 2023, No. 21-16.044; Cass. 1re civ., 20 January 2021, No. 18-24.297; Cass. 1re civ., 28 September 2004, No. 01-14.744; CA Pau, 2e ch., 31 March 2026, No. 24/02619; CA Rennes, 2e ch., 17 February 2026, No. 25/01755; CA Paris, Pôle 1 ch. 10, 8 January 2026, No. 25/06636; CA Douai, 23 October 2025, No. 24/00763; CA Paris, Pôle 5 ch. 6, 11 December 2024, No. 22/02100; CA Paris, Pôle 5 ch. 6, 21 February 2024, No. 22/03333; CA Pau, 2e ch., 7 March 2024, No. 22/03293.

This article is for general information purposes and does not constitute legal advice. As every situation is different, it is advisable to have your loan agreement reviewed before taking any step.