Title: Article 591 Explained: Usufruct & High Forest Timber Cutting

Imagine: you inherit the usufruct (the right to use and receive income) of an oak forest in Calvi, exploited for generations under a regular cutting regime (a programmed rotation of cuts). You continue this cycle, but the bare owner (the one who owns the land without enjoying it) challenges your right to cut certain trees. Who is right?

This seemingly technical question was decided by the Court of Cassation on 30 January 1979. The case concerned a company called Grand Muguet and a seller who had renounced his usufruct over part of the woods. The bare owner argued that this renunciation changed the cutting rules. But the judges said no.

Article 591 of the Civil Code is clear: when high forest timber (adult trees, generally 50 to 150 years old) has been placed under a regular cutting regime before the usufruct opened, the usufructuary may continue to exploit it, provided he respects the periods and the practice of the former owners. And a partial renunciation of the usufruct does not fragment the applicable regime.

The Facts: An Everyday Story

In Lucciana, Haute-Corse, a wooded plot of several hectares belonged to an owner who had granted the usufruct to the company Grand Muguet. The usufructuary exploited the high forest timber according to a regular cutting plan established before the usufruct opened. On 31 December 1970, the seller (bare owner) renounced his usufruct over 9 hectares 59 ares, to facilitate a sale. But he retained the usufruct over the remainder.

A few years later, a dispute arose: the bare owner argued that, since the renunciation, the plots where the usufruct had been retained should be subject to different cutting period rules than those where the usufruct had disappeared. According to him, the usufructuary no longer had the right to cut trees on the plots still encumbered by the usufruct as before. The case went up to the Court of Cassation.

The Reasoning of the Court — Analysed

The Court of Cassation rejected the bare owner's argument. Its reasoning rests on two pillars: Article 591 of the Civil Code and the principle of indivisibility of the usufruct.

Article 591 provides: "When high forest timber has been placed under a regular cutting regime before the usufruct opened, the usufructuary is authorised to benefit from it, provided he complies with the periods and the practice of the former owners." In other words, if the initial owner had established a cutting cycle (for example, cutting every 20 years on a quarter of the area), the usufructuary must follow this rhythm. He can neither accelerate nor slow down the exploitation.

On the second point, the Court held that the partial renunciation of the usufruct does not "dissociate the two parts of the domain with regard to Articles 590 and 591". In clear terms, the usufruct remains a single right over all the encumbered assets, even if the holder renounces it over a fraction. The fact that a plot is released does not change the rules applicable to the remaining plots. The bare owner cannot therefore demand a different cutting regime.

This decision confirms a consistent interpretation of case law: the usufructuary is a temporary manager, but he must respect the prior economic purpose of the woods. It dismisses any attempt by the bare owner to circumvent this principle by fragmenting the scope of the usufruct.

What This Means for You — Practically

Owner/Lessor: if you grant the usufruct of a forest, you cannot later impose on the usufructuary cutting rules more restrictive than those in force before the usufruct, even if you renounce the usufruct over part of the land. Example: in Calvi, a 20-hectare forest exploited under a regular cutting regime every 15 years. The usufructuary cuts 1/15th each year. If the bare owner releases 5 hectares from the usufruct, the usufructuary retains the right to cut on the remaining 15 hectares at the same rate.

Usufructuary: you have the right to continue the exploitation, but you must prove that the regular cutting regime existed before the usufruct opened. Keep previous management plans or exploitation contracts. In Lucciana, a client lost his case for failing to demonstrate the history of cuttings.

Purchaser of a property encumbered by a usufruct: check whether high forest timber is involved. The usufructuary may have a cutting right that reduces the value of the land at your acquisition. Request a condition report and the cutting plan.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Have a joint condition report drawn up before the usufruct opens: describe precisely the woods, their age, the cutting cycle. Have it signed by the bare owner and the usufructuary.
• Keep historical documents: management plans, previous sale deeds, tax returns. They prove the existence of the regular cutting regime.
• Draft a precise usufruct clause in the notarial deed: mention Articles 590 and 591, and specify the cutting arrangements (period, area, species).
• In case of partial renunciation of the usufruct, have the absence of impact on the cutting regime recorded in a separate deed, to avoid any later challenge.

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

The Court of Cassation maintained this position in a decision of 12 March 1985 (No. 83-15.472), where it specified that the usufructuary must respect the "economic purpose" of the woods. Conversely, a decision of 9 November 1993 (No. 91-21.006) reminded that if the woods were not under a regular cutting regime before the usufruct, the usufructuary cannot exploit them freely: he must preserve the substance (Article 578 of the Civil Code). The trend is therefore towards protecting the balance between usufructuary and bare owner, with a presumption in favour of continuity of exploitation if it was established.

Summary and Next Steps

FAQ:

1. Can I, as usufructuary, cut trees without the bare owner's consent? Yes, if the woods were under a regular cutting regime before the usufruct and you respect the cycle. Otherwise, you risk an action for damages for failure to preserve the substance.
2. What should I do if the bare owner challenges my cuttings? Gather evidence of the existence of the regular cutting regime (plans, witness statements, deeds). Apply to the judicial court (formerly the tribunal de grande instance) in summary proceedings to have your right established.
3. Does partial renunciation of the usufruct change the cutting rules? No, according to this decision. The usufruct remains indivisible for the application of Articles 590 and 591.
4. What are the time limits for legal action? You have 5 years from the challenge to bring an action (general limitation period). In summary proceedings, the time limit is shorter (a few weeks).
5. How much does a specialist lawyer cost? Expect between €1,500 and €5,000 for a full procedure, depending on complexity. A preliminary consultation may save you unnecessary costs.

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