Talk:Usufruct

message: 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)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Let me see if I understand the concept...... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Freeholdiongs? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Parties  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Seriously confused article 

message: “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)
thread_title:  This is probably the source of the confusion 

message: 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. Zerotalk 01:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military occupation 

message: 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)
replies: text: I looked and couldn't find it. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

text: 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)

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

text: Thank you for your help! Adrian two (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect link to Romanian Wikipedia article 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Full ownership? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unclear reference to ‘Law of Moses’