Barry v. UNITED STATES FIDELITE & GUARANTY COMPANY
1970 La. App. LEXIS 5383, 236 So. 2d 229 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A surviving spouse's usufruct over property does not terminate when the property is destroyed by the fault of a third party. Instead, the usufruct attaches to the resulting claim for damages, and the usufructuary may sue for the property's full value without joining the naked owners as indispensable parties.
Facts:
- On May 27, 1967, Mrs. Sadie F. Moon was driving her car and stopped at a stop sign at a T-intersection in foggy weather.
- After stopping, Mrs. Moon proceeded into the intersection and struck a vehicle driven by Miss Kathleen Barry.
- Mrs. A. E. Barry and her son, Daniel Barry, were passengers in the vehicle driven by Miss Barry.
- The Barry vehicle was completely destroyed as a result of the collision.
- The destroyed vehicle was community property from the marriage of Mrs. A. E. Barry and her deceased husband.
- As the surviving spouse, Mrs. Barry owned an undivided one-half interest in the car and held a usufruct over the other one-half.
- The naked ownership of the other one-half interest belonged to the four surviving children of the marriage.
Procedural Posture:
- The Barry family sued Mrs. Moon and her insurer, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, in a Louisiana district court for damages arising from an automobile accident.
- The trial court found Mrs. Moon solely negligent and awarded damages for personal injuries.
- The trial court rejected Mrs. Barry's specific claim for damages for the total destruction of the automobile.
- The Barrys, as plaintiffs, appealed to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit, seeking to increase the award to include the value of the car.
- The defendants answered the appeal, urging that the personal injury awards be reduced.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the total destruction of property subject to a surviving spouse's usufruct by the fault of a third party terminate the usufruct, thereby making the naked owners indispensable parties to a lawsuit for damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Culpepper, J.
No, the destruction of property subject to a surviving spouse's usufruct by a third party's fault does not terminate the usufruct, and the naked owners are not indispensable parties. The court reasoned that Louisiana Civil Code Art. 613, which provides for the termination of a usufruct upon the destruction of the property, contemplates a loss that is purely accidental and not one caused by the fault of a person. When a wrongdoer destroys the property, the principle of 'real subrogation' applies, meaning the usufruct does not end but instead attaches to the claim for damages that is substituted for the destroyed item. Furthermore, the court held that a surviving spouse's usufruct is 'under universal title' (over a collection of assets) and does not terminate upon the destruction of individual items. For pragmatic reasons and to promote judicial efficiency, the usufructuary, who has administrative power, can sue for the full value of the property, effectively representing the interests of the naked owners without requiring them to be joined in the suit.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies a significant point in Louisiana's law of property and servitudes by distinguishing between accidental destruction and destruction by a third-party's fault. It establishes that a usufructuary's right is not extinguished but is transformed, attaching to the monetary claim for damages under the principle of real subrogation. This strengthens the position of a surviving spouse and simplifies litigation by allowing them to sue for the full value of destroyed property without the procedural burden of joining all naked owners. The ruling sets a clear precedent that prioritizes judicial efficiency and the underlying policy of supporting the surviving spouse.
