## Facts

- Victoria J. Pendergast was a widow who owned an undivided one-half interest in the family home in Kenner, Louisiana, and held a testamentary usufruct over the other undivided one-half.
- Victoria’s late husband’s children from a prior marriage, Harold Pendergast Jr. and Margaret Pendergast Adolph, were the naked owners of the one-half interest subject to Victoria’s usufruct and would take full ownership of that one-half when the usufruct ended upon Victoria’s death.
- Over a period of years, the home developed severe foundation and structural problems, including a slab that sagged and was concave in the middle, widespread cracking in walls and floors, and interior walls separating and pulling away.
- In May 2004, due to age and infirmity, Victoria moved out of the home to live with her son from a prior marriage, Joseph R. Berthelot III.
- Acting under a power of attorney for his mother, Berthelot informed the stepchildren that Victoria wanted to sell the property, but a meeting to sign a listing agreement ended without agreement among the co-owners.
- In December 2004, Berthelot filed suit on Victoria’s behalf against Harold Jr. and Margaret to force partition of the co-owned home.
- Margaret filed a separate suit against Victoria seeking damages, claiming Victoria failed to promptly repair a broken/leaking sewer line and that this failure caused (or materially contributed to) the foundation damage, constituting a breach of the usufructuary’s duty to act as a prudent administrator.
- The partition suit and Margaret’s damages suit were consolidated for trial.
- The parties presented conflicting evidence, including expert testimony, on whether the foundation damage resulted from a sewer-line leak or from area-wide ground subsidence.
- The trial court found that ground subsidence in the area—not the broken sewer pipe—caused the foundation problems and dismissed Margaret’s claim against Victoria.
- Margaret appealed the dismissal of her damages claim.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court clearly erred in finding that neighborhood ground subsidence, rather than a sewer-line leak allegedly left unrepaired by the usufructuary, caused the home’s foundation damage.
2. Whether, given the trial court’s causation finding, the usufructuary breached the duty to manage the usufruct property as a prudent administrator so as to owe damages to the naked owner.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment dismissing Margaret Adolph’s damages claim against Victoria Pendergast.
- The court held the trial court’s causation finding (subsidence rather than sewer leak) had a reasonable basis in the record and was not clearly wrong under the manifest-error standard.
- Because the factfinder accepted subsidence as the cause, Margaret failed to prove that Victoria’s alleged failure to repair the sewer line caused the complained-of damage, and the prudent-administrator claim failed.

## Legal Principles

- A usufructuary must manage usufruct property as a prudent administrator and is responsible for ordinary care and maintenance, but is not automatically liable for deterioration attributable to natural conditions absent proof of fault and causation.
- Causation and credibility choices between competing experts are factual determinations; on appeal, they are reviewed under the manifest-error/clearly-wrong standard and are not reversed when supported by a reasonable factual basis.
- A naked owner seeking damages from a usufructuary must prove both (1) a breach of the usufructuary’s duty of care and (2) that the breach caused the specific damage claimed.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal of the naked owner’s suit because the trial court reasonably found that area ground subsidence—not an unrepaired sewer-line leak—caused the home’s foundation failure, leaving no proven causal link between the usufructuary’s conduct and the structural damage required to recover under a prudent-administrator theory.


Berthelot v. Pendergast, 989 So. 2d 798 (2008)