## Facts

- In 1966, George and Mildred Green sold approximately 55 acres in Concordia Parish, Louisiana, reserving a usufruct over their residence, a small house west of it, and the surrounding yards.
- Through subsequent transfers, James and Ann Bond acquired ownership of the tract as naked owners, while the Greens remained in possession under the reserved usufruct.
- The Bonds filed a rule to evict the Greens and J.B. and Freddie Jo Powell from Lots 13–16 of Hedges Landing Lake Lots, alleging the occupants had no lease and their reason for occupancy had ended; alternatively, they asked the court to define the boundaries of any occupancy right.
- The defendants filed no responsive pleadings, but the trial court held a hearing and received evidence (including a plat and an exhibit identifying the area claimed).
- The trial court recognized the Greens’ usufruct over Lots 13–16 as designated on an admitted exhibit, ordered the Greens to reimburse $24.89 in previously paid taxes, and required the Greens to pay 1980 and future property taxes for the usufruct property.
- The Bonds appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Greens’ reserved usufruct over the residence, small house, and surrounding yards had terminated.
2. If the usufruct had not terminated, whether the trial court erred in fixing its extent by designating Lots 13–16 as the property subject to the usufruct.
3. Whether procedural objections to using a summary eviction rule against a usufructuary were waived when not timely raised.

## Decision

- The court of appeal affirmed.
- The Greens’ usufruct had not terminated because no legally recognized ground for termination was proven.
- The trial court did not commit manifest error in determining that Lots 13–16 comprised the “house, small house, and yards” reserved in the act of sale, based on the plat, exhibit, and testimony.
- Any objection to the use of a rule procedure was treated as waived where not timely asserted.
- The orders requiring tax reimbursement and assigning future tax responsibility to the usufructuaries were upheld.

## Legal Principles

- A reservation in an act of sale of a residence, an auxiliary structure, and surrounding yards may create a true usufruct (a real right), not a permissive occupancy terminable at the naked owner’s discretion.
- A party seeking to remove a usufructuary must show termination under the Civil Code; a claim that the “purpose” of occupancy has ended is insufficient without a recognized termination basis.
- When the reservation describes the property generally (e.g., “yards surrounding”), courts may use extrinsic evidence such as surveys, plats, and trial exhibits to fix boundaries; appellate review is deferential under the manifest error standard.
- Procedural objections to the form of proceeding may be waived if not timely raised.
- In a usufruct over immovable property, allocating property tax responsibility to the usufructuary and requiring reimbursement for taxes paid by the naked owner is permissible.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld the continued existence of the Greens’ reserved usufruct, affirmed the trial court’s boundary determination placing Lots 13–16 within that usufruct, and sustained orders requiring the usufructuaries to reimburse past taxes and pay future property taxes.


Bond v. Green, 401 So. 2d 639 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981)