Usufruct

Usufruct (pronounced yoo-zoo-fruhkt, yoo-soo-fruhkt, or yoos-soo-fruhkt)

In Roman and Civil Law (also used figuratively), a right to enjoy the advantages (use and derive profit) derivable from the use of property belonging to another, as far as is compatible with the substance of the thing not being destroyed, damaged or injured.

1620–1630: From the Late Latin ūsūfrūctus, the construct being ūsū (ablative of ūsus (use) + frūctus (enjoyment of (the fruits of something)) from the primitive Indo-European root bhrug- (to enjoy) (derivatives of which were used to refer to agricultural products).  It was cognate with the French usufruit, the Italian usufrutto & usofrutto, the Occitan usufrug, the Portuguese usufruto and the Spanish usufructo. The Latin form used in documents in legal proceedings was usus et fructus (use and enjoyment) and in English, use of usufruct was preceded by the now obsolete late fifteenth century delatinized form usufruit.  Usufryct is a noun & verb, usufruction is a noun, usufructing & usufructed are verbs and usufructuary is a noun & adjective; the noun plural is usufructs. 

In legal systems based on the Roman civil law codes, usufruct was the (inherently temporary) right to the use and enjoyment of the property of another, provided the character of the property remained unchanged (ie no destruction, damage or injury).  The legal doctrine interacted with other aspects of Roman law and usus et fructus applied not only to property as now conventional understood but was widely used also in administering the determination of property interests between a slave held under a usus fructus bond and a temporary master, the most obvious implication being any property acquired by a slave as a result of his labor was legally the property of the master.  Modern civil-law systems recognize two classes of usufructs.  A “perfect” usufruct includes only those things that a usufructuary (one who holds property under right of usufruct) can use without changing their substance (typically land, fixed, permanent structures) although the operation of natural forces (floods, earthquakes et all) may affect alterations.  A quasi- (ie “imperfect) usufruct includes property that intrinsically is consumable or expendable (money, perishable agricultural products et al) which would be of no advantage to the usufructuary if they could not be consumed, expend or in substance changed.

Under a usufruct agreement, the usufructuary (the one in whom the right is vested) is entitled to use the property and derive benefits from it (typically sub-leasing space or harvesting crops), but (1) gains no title to the property itself, (2) must to the extent reasonably possible preserve its substance and (3) eventually return it to the “naked owner” (the one possessing valid legal title) upon the expiry of the term of usufruct (which can be for a specific term or tied to the lifetime of the usufructuary.  In modern use, usufruct arrangements can apply not only to land & buildings but also to financial assets and instruments such as stocks, treasury paper (notes, bills & bonds) and cryptocurrency.  As populations age, lawyers expect an increasing number to be registered as contracts as a way of formalizing (ie bullet-proofing) clauses win wills which upon death, pass title in a property to a child, subject to the right of a surviving spouse to live in the property until their death, at which point the title becomes unencumbered and the child may deal with the property.

In 2012, Lindsay Lohan, travelling on the Pacific Coast Highway in Santa Monica, California, was involved in a crash between her (rented) Porsche 911 (997) Carrera S and an eighteen wheeler truck.  As one would suspect in such an unequal contest, the Porsche was badly damaged.

In some common law jurisdictions, usufruct has been codified and added to statutes but elements of the doctrine also appear in contract law.  In a car rental agreement for example the a usufructuary (the one hiring the car) is subject to (an almost) perfect usufruct in that the terms require the vehicle to be returned at the end of contracted period in substantially to same state as when it was delivered, subject only to accepted “wear & tear” which (in this context) would include wear on the tyres and the odd stone chip in the paint.  At no point does title to the vehicle pass to the usufructuary who is in mere legal & lawful possession while the contract is afoot.  Of course, if the vehicle is damaged beyond acceptable “wear & tear” the usufructuary may be held liable, thus the compulsory provision of insurance in such contracts.

The word also came to interest both the modern environmental movement and some activist constitutional lawyers in the US culture wars.  It was Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826; US president 1801-1809) who in 1789 wrote: “Earth belongs – in usufruct – to the living.” By which he meant humans have a right use the resources of the planet for profit and the pursuit of happiness but not in such a way that is so exploitive or destructive that the lives of generations to come will be harmed.  Such a sentiment could have come from Greta Thunberg (b 2003).  According to some legal theorists, his explicit mention of the “living” implied that responsibility for what is and what is to be rests with those now alive, not the dead, thus the argument when interpreting the constitution, the US Supreme Court should be read the document with the twenty-first century more in mind than the eighteenth or nineteenth.