Usufructuary and Assignment of Commercial Lease: What Changes with the Court of Cassation Decision of 6 February 2013

Imagine the scene: in Béziers, on a shopping street, a butcher craftsman has been operating a business for twenty years in leased premises. He is the usufructuary of the lease right — that is, he has the right to use the premises and receive its fruits, but the ownership of the lease belongs to someone else (the bare owner). One day, he wishes to sell his business and assign the lease. But the bare owner opposes this, believing that only he can authorise an assignment. A classic conflict, but with serious consequences.

This question is asked by hundreds of traders every year, particularly in the Hérault where the commercial lease market is very active. Can I assign my lease if I am only a mere usufructuary? The answer is not obvious, because the Commercial Code (Article L. 145-51) sets out strict conditions for assignment. But a decision of the Court of Cassation of 6 February 2013 (n° 11-24.708) clarifies the debate: yes, under certain conditions, the usufructuary can assign the lease without the consent of the bare owner. Decryption.

This decision is a breath of fresh air for trading usufructuaries, but beware: it does not give them a blank cheque. The devil is in the details, as often in property law. So, what is the reasoning of the judges? And above all, what should you do if you are in this situation? Follow the guide.

The facts: a story like many that happen every day

Mr. Y..., a butcher craftsman, operated a business in premises located in Béziers, of which he was the tenant. But the lease right (the commercial lease contract) was encumbered with a usufruct: Mr. Y... was the usufructuary, while his children were the bare owners. In 2007, he wished to sell his business to a third party and, for that purpose, assign the lease. He therefore sought the consent of his children, the bare owners of the lease, who agreed in writing. Fortified by this consent, he signed an assignment deed of his lease right with the purchaser.

But a few months later, the owner of the premises (the landlord) contested the assignment. According to him, Mr. Y..., as usufructuary, did not have the power to assign the lease without his own consent (that of the landlord). Article L. 145-51 of the Commercial Code indeed provides that the tenant (the leaseholder) cannot assign his lease without the landlord's consent, except in certain exceptions. However, for the landlord, only the bare owner of the lease right — that is, the children — could have consented to an assignment, and even then, with his own consent.

The case was brought before the courts: first to the Commercial Court of Béziers, then to the Montpellier Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the landlord, considering that the usufructuary could not assign the lease without the consent of the bare owner of the lease (the children) and without the landlord's consent. Mr. Y... then appealed to the Court of Cassation. The Court of Cassation finally ruled in his favour, overturning the decision of the Court of Appeal.

The reasoning of the court — dissected

To understand the decision, we must return to Article L. 145-51 of the Commercial Code. This text provides that a commercial tenant may assign his lease to the purchaser of his business without having to seek the landlord's consent, provided that the assignor is registered with the Register of Commerce and Companies (RCS) and proves the consent of the bare owner of the business (the person who owns the walls or the business). Here, the landlord argued that this exception applies only to the tenant who is the 'owner' of the lease right, not to a mere usufructuary.

The Court of Cassation dismissed this argument. It held that the usufructuary of the lease right, provided he is registered with the RCS for the business he operates in the leased premises and proves the consent of the bare owners of the lease right (in this case, his children), can rely on Article L. 145-51. In other words, the usufructuary is considered the 'tenant' within the meaning of this article because he personally operates the business and has the power to dispose of the lease with the consent of the bare owners.

The reasoning is subtle: the lease right is a divisible asset between the usufruct (right to use and enjoy) and the bare ownership (right to dispose). But Article L. 145-51 speaks of 'assignment of the lease by the tenant'. However, in commercial law, the tenant is the person who operates the business, even if he is only the holder of a right of use. The Court therefore considered that the usufructuary, as the operator, has the capacity to assign the lease, provided he obtains the consent of the bare owners (who are the true owners of the lease right). This is a teleological reading (based on the purpose of the text): Article L. 145-51 aims to facilitate the transfer of businesses, and refusing this faculty to the usufructuary would harm that objective.

Note that this decision is not a reversal of precedent: it confirms a trend already initiated by the Commercial Chamber, which had previously accepted that the manager-operator (the person who operates a business without owning it) could benefit from Article L. 145-51. It is therefore a logical extension of this case law to usufructuaries.

What this changes for you — concretely

If you are a landlord (the person who rents out the premises), this decision reminds you that you cannot oppose an assignment of lease as long as the assignor (usufructuary) fulfils the conditions: registration with the RCS and consent of the bare owners of the lease. In practice, if a usufructuary tenant notifies you of an assignment with these supporting documents, you must accept it, failing which you may be ordered to pay damages for obstructing the assignment.

If you are a usufructuary tenant, you can now assign your lease more serenely. But beware: you must imperatively obtain the written consent of the bare owners of the lease right (often your parents or children). Without this consent, the assignment would be void. Concrete example: in Montpellier, a usufructuary trader was able to assign his lease to a buyer for €80,000, after having a letter of consent signed by his two children, the bare owners. The landlord tried to block it, but the 2013 decision was successfully relied upon against him.

If you are a purchaser of a business, check the legal situation of the lease: if the seller is a usufructuary, require proof of consent from the bare owners. Without this, the assignment could be annulled, and you would find yourself without a lease. A notary or specialised lawyer can help you verify these documents.

Finally, if you are a bare owner of the lease right, this decision directly concerns you: your consent is indispensable. Do not give it lightly, because once the assignment is made, you will lose all control over the choice of the new tenant (unless the lease contains a consent clause). You can demand guarantees or compensation in exchange for your consent.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Check the capacity of the assignor: before any assignment, ask the seller to prove his capacity (owner, usufructuary, bare owner). If it is a usufructuary, require the written consent of the bare owners of the lease and a copy of the deed creating the usufruct.
• Have a document drawn up in writing: the consent of the bare owners must be clear, dated and signed. Avoid verbal agreements or vague emails. A simple 'I agree' may suffice, but a notarised deed is safer.
• Anticipate in the initial lease: if you are a bare owner and you create a usufruct, provide in the deed a clause governing the conditions of assignment of the lease by the usufructuary (for example, a right of first refusal or approval of the assignee).
• Consult a lawyer before contesting an assignment: if you are a landlord and you receive a notification of assignment by a usufructuary, do not reject it without legal advice. You could be ordered to pay damages for abuse of rights.

Further reading: related case law and developments

This decision is part of a line of rulings favourable to the freedom of assignment of commercial leases. One can cite, for example, a decision of the Court of Cassation of 12 June 2012 (n° 11-18.462) which had already accepted that the manager-operator could rely on Article L. 145-51, provided he was registered and had the consent of the owner of the business. The 2013 decision extends this principle to the usufructuary, which is consistent.

Conversely, some older decisions (such as a 2005 ruling) had refused this right to the usufructuary, considering that he was not the 'owner' of the business. The case law has therefore evolved towards a more flexible interpretation, to the benefit of traders. This trend is confirmed: the courts favour the transfer of businesses and limit obstacles.

For the future, one can expect that this solution will be extended to other dismemberments of ownership, such as emphyteusis or the right of superficies. But for now, remain cautious: every situation is unique, and a lawyer will be able to tell you whether your case falls within the scope of this case law.

What you absolutely must remember

Practical FAQ

Q: Can I assign my commercial lease if I am a usufructuary without the consent of the bare owner of the lease?
R: No, the consent of the bare owners of the lease right is mandatory. On the other hand, you do not need the landlord's consent if you are registered with the RCS.

Q: What should I do if the landlord refuses the assignment despite the consent of the bare owners?
R: You can apply to the Commercial Court to have the validity of the assignment recognised and claim damages from the landlord for abusive resistance.

Q: Must the consent of the bare owners be given in writing?
R: Yes, it is strongly recommended. A written document (signed letter, notarised deed) will protect you in case of a dispute.

Q: Does this decision apply to leases concluded before 2013?
R: Yes, the Court of Cassation interprets an existing law. It applies to all current leases, even those prior to the decision.

Q: Can I assign my lease if I am a usufructuary but the bare owner of the lease is a company?
R: Yes, provided you obtain the consent of the company represented by its legal representative. The legal form of the bare owner is irrelevant.

Are you in a similar situation? A first 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of proceedings — and often much more. Book an appointment →