Succession of Heckert
160 So.2d 375 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana law, a surviving spouse's usufruct over corporate stock is a perfect usufruct, as the stock can be enjoyed through the collection of dividends without altering its substance. Consequently, the usufructuary is a precarious possessor who holds the property for the naked owners and cannot prescribe against their ownership rights, making the ten-year liberative prescription for personal actions inapplicable to a naked owner's claim to recover the stock.
Facts:
- John Earl Heckert and Anna I. Buch married and had two children, acquiring 1010 shares of S. H. Kress and Company stock as community property.
- Anna I. Buch died intestate on July 24, 1938.
- Upon Anna's death, her children inherited a one-half naked ownership interest in the stock, while John Earl Heckert, as the surviving spouse, held a usufruct over their interest.
- John Earl Heckert remarried Eunice Knobloch on August 4, 1939, an act which, by operation of law, terminated his usufruct.
- Despite the termination, Heckert retained possession of all 1010 stock certificates, continued collecting dividends, and made no effort to deliver the children's portion to them.
- Between 1940 and 1944, Heckert donated 300 shares of the stock to his second wife, Eunice.
- Heckert also sold or otherwise disposed of another 410 shares of the stock over time.
- John Earl Heckert died on March 3, 1961, leaving only 300 of the original 1010 shares among his effects.
Procedural Posture:
- The children of John Earl Heckert sued his second wife and executrix, Eunice Knobloch Heckert, in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans to recover their ownership interest in shares of stock.
- The defendant, Eunice Knobloch Heckert, filed an exception of ten years' liberative prescription, arguing the children's claim was time-barred.
- The trial court overruled the defendant's exception of prescription.
- Following a trial on the merits, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs (the children).
- The defendant (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, arguing solely that the trial court erred in overruling her exception of prescription.
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 ten-year liberative prescription for personal actions bar a claim by naked owners to recover corporate stock that was subject to a perfect usufruct, when the claim is brought more than ten years after the usufruct terminated?
Opinions:
Majority - McBride, Judge
No. The ten-year liberative prescription does not bar the children's claim because the usufruct over corporate stock is a perfect usufruct, against which prescription does not run. A perfect usufruct, as defined by Civil Code Art. 534, is of things the usufructuary can enjoy without changing their substance. Corporate stock falls into this category because the usufructuary can enjoy its fruits—the dividends—without consuming or disposing of the underlying shares. Unlike an imperfect usufruct over consumable things like money, which would create a debtor-creditor relationship subject to prescription, a perfect usufruct makes the usufructuary a 'precarious possessor' under Civil Code Art. 3510. A precarious possessor holds property on behalf of the true owner and cannot acquire ownership through prescription. Therefore, the children's right to recover their property is not a personal action for an accounting that prescribes in ten years, but an imprescriptible real right of ownership.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the classification of a usufruct over corporate stock as a perfect usufruct in Louisiana law, significantly strengthening the property rights of naked owners. By holding that the usufructuary is a precarious possessor, the court prevents the running of liberative prescription against the naked owner's right to reclaim their property, regardless of how much time has passed since the usufruct terminated. This precedent ensures that fiduciaries holding non-consumable assets for others cannot defeat the true owner's title through the passage of time or by wrongfully disposing of the property. The ruling distinguishes stock from negotiable instruments and consumables, thereby limiting the application of the imperfect usufruct doctrine and its associated prescriptive period.
