Usufruct of Company Shares: No Right to Profits Before the General Meeting
Droit-immobilier

Usufruct of Company Shares: No Right to Profits Before the General Meeting

📅 Décision du 10 February 2009⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 6 vues📖 7 min de lecture

The Court of Cassation reminds that the usufructuary of company shares has no right to profits until the general meeting distributes them as dividends. Before such attribution, the profits belong to the company, and the usufructuary who votes to place them in reserve does not consent to any gift to the bare owner.

Reference Decision: cc • No. 07-21.806 • 2009-02-10 • View the decision →

Imagine: you own shares in a family company, but you only have the usufruct (the right to use the assets and receive the income, but not to dispose of them freely). Each year, the company makes profits. You expect to receive your share, like rent. Yet the general meeting decides to place these profits in reserve rather than distribute them. You feel cheated: should these profits not come to you? This is exactly the question that arose in Wattrelos, in a case that shook the world of property and companies.

This decision of the Court of Cassation of 10 February 2009 (No. 07-21.806) provides a clear answer: as long as the general meeting has not approved the accounts and decided on the distribution of dividends, the profits have no legal existence for the usufructuary. In other words, you cannot claim what has not yet been attributed. And if you participate in the meeting which votes for the reserve, you are not considered to have made a gift to the bare owner (the one who owns the shares without having the use of them). A decision which has concrete consequences for thousands of owners, from Armentières to Lille.

Whether you are a usufructuary or a bare owner, whether you hold shares in a family SCI or an SARL, this judgment redraws your rights. Let's dive into the details.

The Facts: a Story Like Many Others Every Day

The case begins in Wattrelos, in the Nord. Mr. X is the usufructuary of shares in a property investment company (SCI) which manages a rental property. The SCI makes profits each year, but the general meeting decides to allocate them to a reserve account rather than distribute them as dividends. Mr. X, who hoped to receive these profits as fruits of his shares, sues the company and the bare owner (his son). He argues that the profits constitute fruits and that he is entitled to their immediate attribution. Failing that, he considers that his participation in the vote to put them into reserve amounts to an indirect gift to the bare owner, which should be subject to the rules on gifts.

The first instance court rules in his favour, but the court of appeal reverses the judgment. Mr. X appeals to the Court of Cassation. The Court of Cassation, in a very technical judgment, dismisses his appeal and confirms the position of the court of appeal. For the judges, the profits made by a company only become fruits from the moment the general meeting attributes them as dividends. Before this attribution, they have no separate legal existence. Thus, the usufructuary has no right to undistributed profits, and his vote in favour of putting them into reserve does not constitute a gift.

The Reasoning of the Court — Analysed

The Court of Cassation relies on Article 1844 of the Civil Code, which governs the rights of shareholders. It specifies that the right to dividends arises only after the collective decision of the shareholders. Indeed, the profits are initially the property of the company, and it is only after the approval of the accounts and the determination of distributable sums that the meeting can decide to distribute them. The usufructuary, as holder of a right of enjoyment over the shares, cannot claim sums which have not yet been individualised.

The reasoning is subtle: it distinguishes accounting profit (a mere entry) from the dividend (a sum actually attributed). Before distribution, the profit remains in the company's accounts and may be allocated to reserves or reinvested. The usufructuary cannot demand its distribution, as this would amount to recognising a right of claim against the company before it has decided to part with the funds. Moreover, the Court dismisses the idea of a gift: if the usufructuary votes for the reserve, he is merely exercising his voting right, without any donative intent. The bare owner does not personally enrich himself, because the reserves remain in the company and benefit all the shareholders.

This decision confirms constant case law (Civ. 1ère, 4 March 1986, etc.) and clarifies a frequently debated point. It fits into a logic of protecting the freedom of general meetings to manage profits as they see fit, without interference from usufructuaries.

What This Changes for You — Concretely

For the usufructuary of company shares: you have no right to undistributed profits. If the general meeting decides to put the profits into reserve, you will receive nothing. Nor can you claim compensation. On the other hand, you retain your voting right and can try to influence the distribution policy. In Armentières, a client who is a usufructuary of an SCI told me: 'I thought the profits were automatically mine. Now I know I have to negotiate in advance with the bare owner.'

For the bare owner: you are protected. The usufructuary cannot claim the reserves built up during the usufruct. At the end of the usufruct (death of the usufructuary or expiry of the term), you recover full ownership of the shares, including the accumulated reserves. Example: an SCI in Wattrelos put €50,000 into reserve over 10 years. At the end of the usufruct, the bare owner recovers this €50,000 without having to share it.

For the drafter of deeds (notary, lawyer): when creating a usufruct over company shares, it is crucial to include specific clauses. For example, an adjusted voting right or a minimum distribution obligation. Without this, the usufructuary may end up with no income for years.

If you are in this situation, you must check the company's articles of association and the deed of gift or inheritance that created the usufruct. In the absence of a clause, the general meeting has full power.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

  • Negotiate a minimum distribution clause: in the deed creating the usufruct, provide that each year a percentage of the profits (e.g., 50%) must be distributed as dividends. This guarantees an income for the usufructuary and avoids conflicts.
  • Draft a usufruct agreement: in addition to the articles of association, sign a document specifying the usufructuary's voting rights on the allocation of profits. For example, the usufructuary will have a right of veto over any reserve beyond a certain amount.
  • Anticipate the end of the usufruct: provide in the deed that the reserves built up during the usufruct will be shared between the usufructuary and the bare owner in proportion to their rights. Caution: this clause may be recharacterised as a gift; seek legal advice.
  • Consult a lawyer before any general meeting: if you are a usufructuary and the agenda includes an allocation of profits to reserve, ask for advice. Sometimes a simple letter to the bare owner can unlock an amicable solution.

Further Analysis: Related Case Law and Developments

This decision is part of a line of judgments limiting the rights of the usufructuary over undistributed profits. Already in 1986, the Court of Cassation had ruled that the usufructuary cannot claim reserves built up before the creation of his right (Civ. 1ère, 4 March 1986). In 1999, it specified that the usufructuary's voting right on the allocation of profits is a political right, not a right of claim (Com., 9 November 1999).

The trend of the courts is therefore clear: judges protect the freedom of management of companies and refuse to recognise an automatic right of the usufructuary to profits. For the future, it is likely that practitioners will multiply contractual clauses to secure the usufructuary's income. The law has not changed since 2009, but notarial practice is adapting.

Key Points to Remember

  • Q: Can I demand payment of profits if I am a usufructuary?
    A: No, as long as the general meeting has not voted for their distribution. You are only entitled to dividends actually attributed.
  • Q: What if the general meeting systematically puts profits into reserve?
    A: You can try to negotiate with the bare owner or apply to court for a modification of the articles for abuse of majority, but this is rarely granted.
  • Q: Is a vote to put profits into reserve a disguised gift?
    A: No, according to the Court of Cassation. You are merely exercising your voting right without donative intent.
  • Q: At the end of the usufruct, who gets the reserves?
    A: The bare owner recovers full ownership of the shares, so the reserves go entirely to him, unless otherwise agreed.
  • Q: Can I sell my usufructuary shares if I receive no dividends?
    A: Yes, but their value will be low if the company does not distribute dividends. Have the shares valued by an expert.

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 →

📌 Does this apply to your situation? Maître Cécile Zakine, French real estate lawyer, practises throughout France.
→ Avocat copropriété & ASL  |  → Browse all our legal articles

Questions fréquentes

Puis-je exiger le versement des bénéfices si je suis usufruitier de parts sociales ?

Non, tant que l'assemblée générale n'a pas voté leur distribution en dividendes. Les bénéfices n'ont pas d'existence juridique pour l'usufruitier avant cette attribution.

Que faire si l'assemblée générale met systématiquement les bénéfices en réserve ?

Vous pouvez tenter de négocier avec le nu-propriétaire ou demander en justice une modification des statuts pour abus de majorité, mais c'est rarement accordé. Mieux vaut prévoir une clause contractuelle.

Le vote de mise en réserve par l'usufruitier est-il une donation déguisée ?

Non, selon la Cour de cassation. L'usufruitier exerce simplement son droit de vote sans intention libérale, donc aucune donation au nu-propriétaire.

Quels sont les délais pour contester une décision d'assemblée générale ?

Le délai est de trois mois à compter de la décision pour agir en nullité. Passé ce délai, la décision est définitive.

Puis-je vendre mes parts d'usufruit si je ne perçois aucun dividende ?

Oui, mais leur valeur sera faible si la société ne distribue pas de dividendes. Faites estimer les parts par un expert-comptable avant.

Informations juridiques

  • Numéro: 07-21.806
  • Juridiction: Cour de cassation
  • Date de décision: 10 février 2009

Mots-clés

usufruitparts socialesdividendesbénéficesassemblée générale

Cas d'usage pratiques

1

Usufructuary of a Family SCI in Armentières

Mr. Dupont, 72, is the usufructuary of shares in an SCI that manages a rental property in Armentières. For 5 years, the general meeting (dominated by his children, the bare owners) has voted to put profits into reserve. Mr. Dupont receives no income from his shares.

Application pratique:

Mr. Dupont cannot demand payment of the profits. He must negotiate with his children or, if the articles allow, request a modification. Failing that, he may consider selling his usufruct or giving it to his children, with tax consequences.

2

Bare Owner in Wattrelos Recovering Reserves

Mrs. Martin, bare owner of shares in an SARL in Wattrelos, sees her usufructuary (her uncle) die after 10 years. During this period, the company put €80,000 into reserve.

Application pratique:

Mrs. Martin recovers full ownership of the shares, so the €80,000 reserves go to her entirely. She owes nothing to the usufructuary's estate.

3

Drafting a Usufruct Agreement for an SCI in Lille

A couple wishes to invest in an SCI in Lille: the wife will be the usufructuary, the husband the bare owner. They want to ensure the usufructuary receives an annual income.

Application pratique:

It is advisable to include in the deed a clause requiring a minimum distribution of 50% of profits each year. Otherwise, the usufructuary risks receiving nothing if the general meeting (where the husband has a majority) decides to put everything into reserve.

Maître Cécile Zakine

À propos de l'auteur

Maître Cécile Zakine — Avocate au Barreau des Alpes-Maritimes, Docteur en Droit. Chaque article de ce magazine est rédigé à partir de l'analyse d'une décision de jurisprudence réelle, commentée et mise en perspective par les équipes de Maître Zakine.

Prendre rendez-vous →

Avertissement: Les analyses présentées sur ce site sont fournies à titre informatif uniquement et ne constituent pas des conseils juridiques personnalisés. Pour une consultation adaptée à votre situation, contactez un avocat.

Articles similaires en Droit-immobilier

Voir tout →

Servitude de passage et tierce opposition : protéger son droit d'accès en copropriété

Un copropriétaire peut-il s'opposer à la suppression d'une servitude de passage qui profite à son lot, même si le syndicat accepte la fin de l'enclave ? La Cour de cassation répond oui, reconnaissant un intérêt distinct pour agir en tierce opposition.

23 juil. 2026Lire →

Enclave et servitude : quand le droit du travail ne crée pas de passage forcé

La Cour de cassation rappelle que l'état d'enclave d'un fonds ne peut résulter des obligations réglementaires imposées aux entreprises en matière d'issues et dégagements. Ainsi, un propriétaire ne peut exiger un passage sur le fonds voisin au seul motif que son bâtiment doit respecter des normes de sécurité incendie.

23 juil. 2026Lire →

Lorsque, faute de convention écrite ou

Lorsque, faute de convention écrite ou dans le silence de cette convention, les parties à un contrat de transport public routier de marchandises n'ont pas stipulé une durée de préavis de rupture, cette durée est fixée par un contrat-type approuvé par décret pris en application de l'article L. 1432-4 du code des transports. Les dispositions de l'article L. 442-6, I, 5°, devenu L. 442-1, II, du code de commerce ne trouvent alors pas à s'appliquer. Il en va de même lorsque la convention écrite renvoie expressément à la clause du contrat-type fixant une telle durée. Lorsque les parties ont conclu un contrat écrit stipulant la durée du préavis de rupture, les dispositions de l'article L. 442-1, II, du code de commerce sont applicables. Dans cette hypothèse, l'auteur de la rupture qui a consenti à son partenaire un délai de préavis au moins égal à celui prévu au contrat-type dans sa version en vigueur à la date de la notification de la rupture, ne saurait voir sa responsabilité engagée sur le fondement de ce texte

23 juil. 2026Lire →

Explorez plus d'analyses juridiques en droit droit-immobilier

Tous les articles Droit-immobilier
★★★★★4.9/5 — Avis Google

Maître Zakine, Doctor of Law

Phone and video consultations available — Fast appointments

Book an appointment
First consultation 30 minutes — €45

🔒 Confidentiel • Sans engagement • Réponse rapide