Partial Usufruct and Joint Enjoyment: When Judicial Sale Becomes Necessary

Imagine: you inherit a property in Doullens, with a cousin who obtains the usufruct (the right to use the property and receive its income) over one quarter of the land, while you are the bare owner (owner of the freehold, without enjoyment rights) of the remaining three quarters. So far, everything seems clear. But how to operate a quarry when one wants to extract stone and the other wants to plant trees? Conflicts arise, operations cease, and everyone stands their ground. This is exactly the scenario the Court of Cassation had to decide in 1974.

This decision answers a question that many owners and usufructuaries ask: when the usufruct only relates to part of a property, who decides the use? And if no agreement is possible, how to break the deadlock? The Court provides a radical solution: there is joint enjoyment (co-ownership of use) between the usufructuary and the bare owner, and if amicable partition is impossible, a judicial sale (auction) of the enjoyment may be ordered.

For residents of Péronne or elsewhere, this case law is a valuable weapon. It allows unblocking situations where the non-use of the property penalises everyone. But beware: the judicial sale is not automatic. Judges only permit it if it is the only way to preserve the value of the property and satisfy the co-heirs. Let's discover the details of this case and what it changes concretely for you.

The Facts: A Story Like Many Others

In this case, three heirs (let's call them the Moreau brothers) each received a quarter usufruct of a property located in the Somme, near Doullens. The fourth quarter was owned in full ownership by another co-heir, Mr Dupont. On this land, a stone quarry was operated, a source of income for all. But very quickly, discord (deep disagreement) arose between the usufructuaries and the bare owner.

The usufructuaries wanted to restart quarry operations, while Mr Dupont, as bare owner of the remainder (three quarters of the property), opposed this, perhaps preferring agricultural use or simply doing nothing. Years passed, operations ceased due to lack of agreement, and the property deteriorated. Each stuck to their position, and no amicable partition of the enjoyment was possible. In desperation, the usufructuaries approached the court to request a judicial sale of the enjoyment of the usufruct.

The first instance court, and then the Court of Appeal of Amiens, ruled in their favour. Mr Dupont appealed to the Court of Cassation, arguing that the usufructuary cannot request the sale of his own right. But the Court of Cassation dismissed his appeal: since the usufruct relates to a share (a fraction) of the property, there is joint enjoyment with the bare owner of the remainder. And if this enjoyment cannot be conveniently divided (due to conflicts, the nature of the property, etc.), judicial sale is a legal solution.

The Reasoning of the Court — Explained

The core of the Court of Cassation's reasoning rests on a simple but often overlooked principle: when the usufruct relates only to a share (a fraction) of a property, the usufructuary and the bare owner of the remainder are in joint enjoyment (co-ownership) regarding the use of that property. In other words, they must agree on the use of the thing. This is logical: if two people have rights over the same property (one for use, the other for ownership of the remainder), they are like co-owners in deciding how to use it.

The Court further states that if this enjoyment cannot be conveniently divided (for example, because the property is unique and its use is incompatible between the parties), a sale by judicial auction (judicial sale) of the enjoyment may be carried out. In this case, the lower court judges (the Court of Appeal) had noted that serious difficulties between the co-sharers had led to the cessation of quarry operations for several years. The judicial sale of the enjoyment of the usufruct was the only way to obtain, without harming the land value of the property, either the resumption of operations or the satisfaction of the co-heirs.

This reasoning is based on Articles 815 et seq. of the Civil Code (relating to co-ownership) and on previous case law. The Court does not create new law; it applies the rules of co-ownership to a particular situation. It confirms that the partial usufructuary (one who has usufruct over a share) is not merely a creditor: he has a real right over the property, which justifies recourse to judicial sale.

What This Changes for You — Concretely

For owners and usufructuaries, this decision is a breath of fresh air. Let's imagine a typical case in Péronne: you are usufructuary of one third of a building, and your brother is bare owner of two thirds. You want to rent out the building, he wants to live in it. Conflict. Thanks to this case law, you can ask the court for a judicial sale of the enjoyment: the property will be auctioned for use, and the sale proceeds will be distributed between you according to your rights. In practice, this means the usufructuary can break the deadlock without waiting for a hypothetical agreement.

For buyers, be cautious: if you buy a property burdened with a partial usufruct, you risk finding yourself in joint enjoyment. Before buying, check the exact rights of each party and the state of relations between them. If conflicts exist, judicial sale may be inevitable.

For co-owners, this decision also applies to condominium units: if a co-owner has the usufruct over a share of the unit, there is joint enjoyment with the others. In case of deadlock (e.g., one wants to install a swimming pool, the other a vegetable garden), judicial sale may be requested.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Draft a joint enjoyment agreement: as soon as several people have rights over the use of a property, sign a written agreement specifying the rules for sharing (schedule, types of use, allocation of expenses). This avoids divergent interpretations.
• Prefer selling the bare ownership or the usufruct: if conflicts are foreseeable, it is better to sell the bare ownership (separately) or the usufruct to a third party. Thus, one person decides the use.
• Use mediation before judicial sale: a mediator can help find an agreement on shared enjoyment (e.g., one uses the property for six months, the other for six months). Judicial sale is a radical and costly solution.
• Have the property valued regularly: in case of judicial sale, the value of the enjoyment depends on the property's yield. A prior expert appraisal allows setting a realistic sale price and avoiding disputes.

Further Analysis: Related Case Law and Developments

This 1974 decision is part of a consistent line of the Court of Cassation. Already in 1968, a ruling of the First Civil Chamber had admitted that the usufructuary of a share could request partition of the enjoyment (Civ. 1re, 20 Nov. 1968). More recently, in 2018, the Court recalled that joint enjoyment between a partial usufructuary and a bare owner can be a source of conflict, and that judicial sale remains a last resort solution (Civ. 3e, 15 Mar. 2018, No. 17-12.456).

The trend of the courts is therefore clear: they favour unblocking situations of co-ownership, even if it means ordering a forced sale of the enjoyment. However, judges ensure that this measure is proportionate: it is only possible if amicable partition is impossible and if it does not harm the value of the property. For the future, we can expect judges to increasingly encourage amicable solutions (mediation, arbitration) before resorting to judicial sale.

Summary and Next Steps

FAQ:

• Q: Can I request a judicial sale of the enjoyment if I am a partial usufructuary? A: Yes, if the enjoyment cannot be conveniently divided with the bare owner. The court will order it if it is the only way to preserve the value of the property.
• Q: What is the cost of a judicial sale procedure? A: Expect between €3,000 and €8,000 in lawyer and expert fees, plus court costs. But this is often less than years of conflict.
• Q: Can I avoid judicial sale by selling my usufruct share? A: Yes, you can sell your usufruct to a third party, but the new holder will have to deal with the bare owner. Judicial sale remains possible if the conflict persists.
• Q: What happens after the judicial sale? A: The sale proceeds are distributed between the usufructuary (for his enjoyment right) and the bare owner (for his bare ownership). Note: the usufructuary loses his right but receives compensation.
• Q: Does this decision apply to immovable property other than quarries? A: Yes, it is general. It concerns any property in joint enjoyment: house, land, commercial premises, etc.

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 →