Talk:Usufruct

I wanted a link for the word abusus but we don't have an entry for that concept, and I don't feel knowledgable enough to make one.

I did figure out what I think it means from the List of Latin phrases page. It says, "Rights abused are still rights (cf. abusus non tollit usum)." Therefore I suppose that ownership includes the right to abuse or destroy property. Is there an outside link for this that we can add? Perhaps a link to a legal dictionary, or can we add a wictionary entry? Rozzychan 16:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I understand the concept......

I was born in Louisiana (a French Civil Law state) where usufruct is a concept embodied in the Louisiana version of the Civil Law Napoleonic Code. However, I now live in Texas, the laws of which are based on English common law. The concept of the usufruct is roughly analogous to the concept of a beneficial interest in a trust, under the English system of "equity." This is the way I understand it:

The concept of the usufruct,

I think, we find

Is neatly tucked

Somewhere within the Civil Law.

Louisiana stands in awe!

If Cajun Country's your abode,

You'll find Napoleonic Code--

Unlike the folks who live in Texas.

Over here, the only nexus

With the French that we can find

Is Cajun seafood -- we don't mind!

The English law, it works for me.

Compare the two, and you may see

A little similarity

In usufruct

And equity.

Sorry, I just couldn't resist..... Famspear (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freeholdiongs?

My understanding of freeholdings (which we have in Australia) is that all land is owned by the commonwealth in perpetuity - the Australian landmass is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia. The commonwealth parcels some of the land out as freeholdings, but that's not exactly the same thing as owning it.

Is that another example?

Paul Murray (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parties

The parties to usufruct are the bare owner and the usufructuary. Because inheritance impinges on the transmission of shares, public corporations in the Napoleonic Code countries often have extensive provisions for dealing with the rights of shares subject to usufruct set out in their articles of association. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously confused article

Nowhere does this article explain in clear English what the word means. Eg: In what sense is a right, or the use of a fruit, a form of servitude? As in the History section, Para two? 98.236.68.32 (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably the source of the confusion

“There were servitudes which might be considered as either real or personal, and others, again, which could only be personal, such as usufruct, use, habitation, and the labour of slaves.”

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 9: Laprade-Mass Liturgy

Seems to me the term is a good that can be enjoyed, and sometimes it was the enjoyment of the use of slaves. But the word itself does not imply servitude and has nothing, necessarily, to do with it. Will make a stab at correction in a day or so. wgoetsch (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you folks are thinking of servitude in the sense of "involuntary servitude" or slavery. That's not what the article is talking about. The term "servitude" has other legal meanings. Read the article on servitudes -- there is a link to it in the article on Usufruct. Famspear (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We two people are actually one; for the first post I thought I was signed in but wasn't.

Of course there are meanings of servitude other than slavery, eg: I am a farmhand I serve the farmer who may provide a dwelling for my me and my family on the farm at no cost and a wage as well: the dwelling is usufruct; while I am in servitude it is not involuntary: I am an employee.

That's not my point though. It is the opposite, which is that the term here to be defined, usufruct, considered on its own, has no intrinsic connection to servitude, never mind that it has in the past sometimes been associated with it. Yet the Para I object to, as written, implies to me that it always involves some sort of servitude. I don't think it does and can probably come up with examples if you disagree.

I am glad for your interest as I'm no lawyer (no spurn intended) and may well go wild. So keep an eye on me. wgoetsch (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: I read the first part of the servitude article as you suggested and understood most of it, but not all. I think its writer has lost track of just who the audience is for an Encyclopedia of this type. We are not writing a law journal here and plain English, eschewing esoterica, is preferable and certainly possible here. It is self-evident who our audience is in Wikipedia so I shall not elaborate it. wgoetsch (talk) 03:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Military occupation

The concept of usufruct appears in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 in relation to a military occupation. It is hard to understand on the basis of the civil description appearing on this page. If anyone has the requisite knowledge to add a section explaining this usage, please do so. Zero^talk 01:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tho. Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison, (Sept. 6.,1789?) wrote: "The earth belongs--in usufruct--to the living." This historic mention is relevant to today and should be addressed. Margaret9Mary205.167.120.201 (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added!Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 06:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit caught my eye. The cited source (the OED) has an online paywall and I'm not a paid subscriber

Does that cited source actually support all that is asserted there regarding what Jefferson meant? If so, considering the paywall, perhaps a quote illustrating that support would be appropriate.
Even if that source does provide clear support, is a dictionary (even the OED) appropriate for citation as a reliable source for such an assertion re what Jefferson meant?
Even if it is, would not it be better to cite a source clearly weightier re Jefferson's historical mindset?
Are such weighty sources unanimous re this? If not, what about WP:DUE re differing viewpoints?

Some quick googling turned up [1], [2] and other sources which look weighty to my untutored eye. I didn't try to read them looking for whether they support the assertions here in wikivoice; could someone who knows more than I about this please take another look at this? Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect link to Romanian Wikipedia article

I have tried to edit the link to the Romanian version, which should be https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drept_de_uzufruct and not the currently linked https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drept_de_uz Please correct the link, as I'm not able to. Adrian two (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done I looked and couldn't find it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Main article, i.e., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usufruct on the left side (Languages) -> the Română entry links to https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drept_de_uz which should be changed to link to https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drept_de_uzufruct Thanks, Adrian two (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't know enough about the technicalities to fix this, but I've raised this at WP:VPT#Apparently incorrect interlanguage link. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ro.wiki version has its own Wikidata item, which prevents it from being added to the (correct) Wikidata item connected to all the other languages. That has to be deleted before the language link can be corrected. I posted a request for deletion on Wikidata. Once that's deleted (I've no idea how long it takes), you should be able to fix the link by clicking edit in the languages list. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, to both of you. Adrian two (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the rowiki link from Q12727046 and added it to Q160474. Should be fixed now. That first Wikidata entry should probably be deleted still, but I don't know enough about WD to get involved. rchard2scout (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My deletion request is still listed; I expect an admin will take care of it if it's not deleted automatically as an empty item. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! Adrian two (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Full ownership?

"Someone enjoying all three rights (usus, fructus, abusus) has full ownership."
I believe that is not entirely correct. Usus is "use or enjoy without altering", fructus is "derive profit/gain" and abusus is "alienate through consumption, destruction or legitimate transfer".
Where is the right to modify or alter that which is owned, such as repairing a chair, painting a house, or replacing parts on a car for performance gain? Would that be included in abusus? 190.100.175.35 (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear reference to ‘Law of Moses’

The History topic includes the following quote:

“ Ancient examples of usufruct are found in the Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses directed property owners not to harvest the edges of their fields, and reserved the gleanings for the poor.”

The only reference in this para is to the biblical verses themselves, not to any scholarly analysis of why this constitutes usufruct. Surely the simplest analysis is that these laws are a form of eleemosynary tithe or tax - what is the basis for saying that they imply a system of usufruct? And where does the Hammurabi code contain usufructuary laws, as no citation is given?

All very strange, especially given that the Rabbinic legal system set out in the Talmud contains an intricate system of usufruct, including in relation to marital assets previously owned by a wife (נכסי מלוג) 2A0D:6FC7:33A:5700:C487:D6E2:BFFE:C6CE (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]