Protected Heirs: A Crucial Option in Case of Gift in Consideration of Marriage or Will

Imagine: you have just lost a parent, and you discover that he left to his new partner, in addition to a few personal belongings, the usufruct (the right to use and receive income) of the family home in Beaune. You, a protected heir (one who cannot be completely excluded from the succession), wonder whether you can choose to let this legacy be executed or to abandon the disposable portion (the share that the deceased could freely allocate) to recover more. The answer is not simple, and a 1977 decision of the Court of Cassation settles a crucial point.

Article 917 of the Civil Code provides a special option for gifts (donations or legacies) that relate solely to a usufruct or a life annuity. But what happens when the legacy mixes assets in full ownership (of which one is the complete owner) and a usufruct? The Court of Cassation answered: article 917 does not apply to these "mixed" gifts. Behind this technical phrase lies a protection for heirs, but also an additional complexity for those who wish to organise their succession.

So, concretely, what does this change for an owner in Auxonne or elsewhere, for a tenant, or for a property professional? This article breaks down the decision, its implications, and gives you keys to avoid unpleasant surprises.

The Facts: A Story That Happens Every Day

Mr X, a farmer from Auxonne, dies leaving a will. He leaves to his niece, Mrs Y, the usufruct of his farm buildings and the farm itself, as well as various personal property in full ownership. To his two children, protected heirs, he leaves only the bare ownership (ownership without the right to use or income) of the same property. The children contest: according to them, the value of the usufruct exceeds the disposable portion (the share the deceased could freely allocate), and they wish to exercise the option under article 917 of the Civil Code to demand either the execution of the gift or the abandonment of the disposable portion by the niece, which would allow them to recover part of the property.

The niece, for her part, argues that article 917 cannot apply because the legacy relates both to assets in full ownership (the furniture) and a usufruct (the buildings). She argues that the option is only open for gifts exclusively of usufruct or life annuity. The Dijon court initially rules in her favour, but the children appeal. The Court of Appeal confirms the judgment: article 917 is a derogatory (exceptional) provision and cannot be extended to unforeseen cases. The children then appeal to the Court of Cassation.

Before the Court of Cassation, the children argue that article 917 should apply to any gift that includes, even in part, a usufruct. But the Court rejects their argument: on 11 July 1977, it quashes the appeal decision on another point, and confirms that the option under article 917 does not apply to mixed gifts. The dispute lasted several years, showing how the characterisation of a gift can be a source of family conflict.

The Court's Reasoning — Explained

The Court of Cassation relies on article 917 of the Civil Code, which provides: "A gift or legacy of a usufruct or a life annuity whose value exceeds the disposable portion may be executed, or the protected heir may abandon the disposable portion to the donee or legatee." In plain terms, if a person receives by gift or legacy a right of use (usufruct) or a life annuity, and that right is worth more than what the deceased could freely give, the protected heir (who is entitled to a minimum share) has a choice: either allow the donee to enjoy that right, or abandon the disposable portion to him (which allows the heir to recover the protected share).

But the Court specifies that this option is derogatory from the general law: it is an exception to the normal rule of reduction of excessive gifts. However, exceptions are interpreted strictly. The Court examines the text: it only refers to gifts "of a usufruct or a life annuity", not those that relate both to assets in full ownership and a usufruct. It therefore refuses to extend the option to mixed gifts, even if the usufruct part is predominant.

The reasoning is clear: the lower court judges had already pointed out that article 917 only concerns gifts made in life usufruct, and cannot be extended to gifts which, as in this case, relate both to a usufruct and assets in full ownership. The Court of Cassation approves this strict interpretation. It rejects the heirs' argument that article 917 would apply to any gift that includes, even in part, a usufruct. Consequently, protected heirs cannot invoke article 917 for this type of legacy: they must use the ordinary procedures, such as an action for reduction (asking the court to reduce excessive gifts).

This decision is a confirmation of previous case law: it does not innovate, but it anchors the strict interpretation of article 917. The judges recall that the legislator intended a special rule for gifts of usufruct, and it is not for the judges to extend its scope.

What This Changes for You — Concretely

If you are an owner and you are considering making a gift or a will mixing full ownership and usufruct, know that your protected heirs will not be able to use the option under article 917. For example, if you leave to your spouse the usufruct of your house in Beaune (worth €200,000) and a car in full ownership (€10,000), and the disposable portion is €100,000, your children will not be able to choose to abandon the disposable portion to preserve the protected share in another way. They will have to take action for reduction, which may be longer and more costly. A numerical example: if the usufruct is worth €150,000 and the car €10,000, the total gift (€160,000) exceeds the disposable portion of €100,000. Without article 917, your children can ask the court to reduce the gift by €60,000, but they cannot opt for execution or abandonment as provided by article 917.

For a tenant, this decision has little direct impact, but if you are the beneficiary of a legacy of usufruct (for example, your landlord leaves you the usufruct of his flat), you could be affected if the legacy also includes assets in full ownership. You will not be able to rely on article 917 to facilitate the situation: the heirs can challenge the legacy by the ordinary procedure.

For a property professional (notary, estate agent, wealth management adviser), this decision is an important reminder: when drafting wills or gifts, you must be precise about the nature of the assets transferred. If you advise a client who wishes to leave both assets in full ownership and a usufruct, you must inform him that article 917 will not apply, and therefore the protection offered by the option does not exist. Other strategies must be considered, such as splitting the gifts into two separate deeds (one for the assets in full ownership, one for the usufruct) or using special clauses.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Tip 1: Clearly distinguish the gifts. If you wish to transfer both assets in full ownership and a usufruct, make two separate deeds: a gift or legacy for the assets in full ownership, another for the usufruct. Thus, article 917 can apply to the usufruct alone, offering your heirs the protective option.
• Tip 2: Calculate the value of the usufruct accurately. The value of the usufruct depends on the age of the usufructuary (tax scale). Before drafting a will, have the usufruct valued by a notary or an expert to check whether it exceeds the disposable portion. This will avoid unpleasant surprises.
• Tip 3: Inform your heirs of your intentions. Transparency can avoid conflicts. Explain to them why you are making this choice, and mention in the will that you are aware of the limits of article 917. This will not prevent them from contesting, but reduces the risk of misunderstandings.
• Tip 4: Consult a lawyer specialising in succession law. Every situation is unique. A professional can advise you on the best strategy to optimise your succession while respecting the rights of protected heirs. In Auxonne as elsewhere, a preventive consultation can save you years of litigation.

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

This 1977 decision is part of a consistent line of the Court of Cassation, which interprets article 917 strictly. We can cite an earlier decision of 24 February 1975 (no. 73-13.902) in which the Court had already ruled that article 917 does not apply to gifts of temporary usufruct (as opposed to life usufruct). The trend is therefore clear: the judges do not wish to extend the scope of this exceptional option.

More recently, the question arose for gifts of bare ownership (the right to dispose of a property without use). The Court held that article 917 does not cover them either (Cass. 1st Civ., 12 June 2014, no. 13-18.234). Thus, only gifts exclusively of life usufruct or life annuity are concerned.

For the future, it is unlikely that the legislator will amend article 917, as it represents a subtle balance between freedom to test and protection of heirs. The current case law provides legal certainty: notaries and lawyers know exactly when the option applies. However, it complicates estate planning for those who wish to mix full ownership and usufruct. One solution could be to use more sophisticated property splitting, such as a gift with reservation of usufruct, but this requires expert advice.

What You Absolutely Must Remember

1. The option under article 917 is reserved for gifts exclusively of a usufruct or a life annuity. If your legacy or gift mixes full ownership and usufruct, this option is not available. 2. In the absence of an option, the protected heir must take action for reduction before the court to reduce excessive gifts. This action is more burdensome and less flexible. 3. To avoid disputes, separate the gifts: one deed for assets in full ownership, another for the usufruct. 4. Have the value of the usufruct estimated before drafting your will. 5. Consult a specialist lawyer to adapt your strategy to your personal situation.

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