Case Name: Succession of Mrs. Pearl L. Hatten NORTON
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1963-11-12
Citations: 157 So. 2d 909
Docket Number: No. 5946
Parties: Succession of Mrs. Pearl L. Hatten NORTON.
Judges: Before ELLIS, LOTTINGER, HER-GET, LANDRY and REID, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 157
Pages: 909–911

Head Matter:
Succession of Mrs. Pearl L. Hatten NORTON.
No. 5946.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.
Nov. 12, 1963.
J. Huntington Odom, Baton Rouge, Attorney to Assist the Inheritance Tax Collector, for appellant.
John V. Parker of Parker & Parker, Baton Rouge, for appellee.
Before ELLIS, LOTTINGER, HER-GET, LANDRY and REID, JJ.

Opinion:
HERGET, Judge.
Mrs. Pearl L. Hatten Norton died intestate in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, where she was domiciled. She left no separate property. Her estate consisted of her interest in the community property. She was survived by her husband, John A. Norton, and four forced heirs — one son, two daughters and one granddaughter. On the petition of all of these parties the succession was opened and search made for a will. None was found. Thereafter all the forced heirs renounced Mrs. Norton's succession. John A. Norton, the surviving husband, thereupon filed a petition to be recognized as the sole heir in community of decedent, Mrs. Pearl Norton, and on his petition the Sheriff and Ex-officio Inheritance Tax Collector of the Parish of East Baton Rouge was ordered to show cause why the inheritance tax should not be fixed at the sum of $532.28 — the tax due on the value of the one-half community interest inherited by him after deducting therefrom the value of the usufruct to which he was entitled. The inheritance tax collector maintained the value of the usufruct should not be taken into consideration in fixing the value of the property inherited by the surviving spouse and accordingly, asserted there was due an additional sum of $369.26 inheritance tax. There was no controversy as to the market values placed on the property.
The only issue, therefore, for resolution is whether there should be deducted the value of the usufruct from the value of the community interest inherited by the surviving spouse.
The tax collector appealed from a judgment of the Trial Court making the rule absolute and fixing the inheritance tax at the sum of $532.28.
We reiterate our observation "In re Stelly's Estate", La.App., 185 So. 637, page 640, as follows:
"The surviving spouse does not acquire the usufruct of the interest of the deceased spouse by inheritance, and for that reason she owes no inheritance tax on the value of that usu-fruct. Succession of Marsal, 118 La. 212, 42 So. 778; Succession of Gremillion v. Downs, Sheriff, La.App., 165 So. 481. But the fact that the surviving spouse owes no tax on the value of that usufruct does not mean that the usufruct has no value and does not decrease the value of the property on •which it rests. Before the tax is fixed, the value of the property must be ascertained by deducting the value of the usufruct on it. " (Emphasis supplied.)
The forced heirs renounced " any and all interests or claims to which they might be entitled, from the property and assets composing the community of ac-quets and gains existing between the late Mrs. Pearl L. Hatten Norton and John A. Norton." I,n the absence of parents, as is the case here, the renouncing heirs' portion, under LSA-C.C. Art. 1022, goes "to those in the next degree" and under LSA-C.C. Art. 915 the surviving spouse is the recipient of the accretion, as he is the heir in the next rank or degree. Paline v. Heroman, 211 La. 64, 29 So.2d 473. By virtue of the renunciations, the surviving spouse inherited from the de cujus that which the forced heirs renounced- — the naked interest in the community property.
Accordingly, the value of the property so inherited, the naked interest, must be determined by deducting the value of the usufruct from the value of the property.
For these reasons the judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed.
REID, J., dissents with written reasons.