2025 - DISPUTE BETWEEN SEVERAL DENTISTS AND THEIR 'LANDLORD,' INCLUDING THREATS OF EVICTION

Assistance for a group of several Dentists who were "mistreated" by companies providing them with an equipped dental office with various services (the "Disputed Companies").

1.      Circumstances:

The Disputed Companies enticed the Dentists concerned by promising to provide each of them with a modern, fully equipped individual dental office, along with various services. These offices were made available in different ways, either through civil service companies ("SCM"), through a lease agreement, or through a service contract.

2.      Dispute:

Unfortunately, the nature of the billed services (precise description) and especially their billing methods were not clearly specified in the agreements, and the Disputing Companies overcharged the Dentists. When these Dentists began to refuse to pay these unfounded invoices, justifying their refusal both factually and legally, the Disputing Companies simply threatened them with eviction and/or expelled them without a trial or notice, leaving patients shocked and, above all, unable to continue their treatments.

First example: one of the Dentists, who was using the premises as a partner in a civil joint venture company, was illegally billed 45% of his monthly revenue, whereas this was supposed to be a ceiling, and the principle of a civil joint venture company (which was also what the statutes provided) is to save money for its members and to bill at the actual cost or with the smallest possible margin. Refusing to pay, he was evicted overnight without a court order authorizing the eviction!

Second example: two of the dentists were threatened with eviction if they did not sign a new contract that was much more lucrative for the Litigious Companies, but illegal (notably double billing for the same services, amounts charged far exceeding market rates, etc.), and harmful. Refusing to pay, one was evicted without notice or judgment, the other was prevented from working on the premises!

3.      Description of Dumas Structure Intervention:

 Dumas Structure initiated several actions and procedures, including:

- An urgent hearing on an hourly basis in the 2nd example, to obtain the reinstatement of the Dentists in their offices and compensation for damages suffered. Dumas Structure was successful and obtained that they be reinstated within 6 days, that each of the Dentists receive 9,000 euros in damages for 6 days of deprivation of use of their dental office, and 2,000 euros each under Article 700, as well as the condemnation of the opposing party to pay the legal costs;

 - Seeking an alternative solution in the first example by having the expelled person become an associate of another dentist in order to continue practicing and following up with his patients;

- Filing a criminal complaint;

- Filing a complaint with the Council of the Order of Dentists;

- Preventing blackmail that would have replaced a clear equipped premises rental agreement with a vague and abusive service contract, which would have allowed the Disputed Companies to charge much more illegally.

CONCLUSION: This case highlights how essential it is to seek support before signing any contract, as a dispute of this kind ultimately costs far more in fees than having contracts reviewed by a competent lawyer before signing. And this doesn't even take into account the legal costs, the moral damage, the impact on the reputation of the dentists involved, etc.