## Facts

- Ellen Barrett, an elderly woman with limited income, owned a Shreveport lot improved with an old, dilapidated frame house.
- Ellen executed an authentic act of sale conveying the property to her nephew by marriage, Rufus Barrett, for cash plus his promise to build a residence on the lot and allow her a life right of use and habitation.
- The recorded instrument reserved to Ellen “the right of use and habitation” but did not expressly provide that she would have exclusive occupancy.
- Rufus demolished the existing structure, built a new three-bedroom frame house, and moved in with his wife and children.
- Rufus provided Ellen a private bedroom, moved some of her belongings (including a piano) into that room, and allowed her to live in the home.
- Ellen claimed the parties’ understanding was that Rufus would build a separate house, or a house for her exclusive use, and that she conveyed the property in reliance on that promise.
- Ellen watched demolition and construction without protesting and initially accepted the arrangement before later suing.

## Issues

1. Whether a reserved right of “use and habitation” entitled Ellen to exclusive occupancy of the newly built residence.
2. Whether Ellen proved grounds to annul or rescind the sale based on alleged nonperformance or misrepresentation regarding exclusive housing.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the district court’s judgment.
- Ellen was not entitled to annul or rescind the conveyance.
- Ellen was not entitled to exclusive possession of the new residence.
- Ellen’s life right of use and habitation was recognized and preserved, but it did not require Rufus to vacate or bar him and his family from living in the home.

## Legal Principles

- A right of habitation permits the holder to live in another’s house to satisfy personal accommodation needs, but it does not, without express stipulation, confer exclusive occupancy or the right to exclude the owner.
- Contract interpretation begins with the written instrument; an unstated promise of exclusivity will not be imposed where the authentic act reserves only “use and habitation.”
- Tacit acceptance and lack of timely objection to known performance may support the conclusion that performance conforms to the parties’ agreement.
- Rescission or annulment requires sufficient proof of a legally recognized basis (e.g., material misrepresentation or failure of cause); substantial performance consistent with the written terms defeats such relief.

## Conclusion

The court held that the reserved life right of use and habitation allowed Ellen to reside in the house and receive reasonable accommodations, but it did not give her exclusive possession, and the evidence did not justify setting aside the sale.


Barrett v. Barrett, 5 So. 2d 381 (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1941)