## Facts

- A decedent left his widow a usufruct over 143 acres of North Louisiana timberland and left the naked ownership to a relative.
- The property was predominantly loblolly pine with some hardwoods; no formal timber management plan existed when the usufruct arose.
- Historical use included former cultivation decades earlier and only sporadic timber removals (insect-related “bug cuts” and a one-time pine pole harvest), with no recent major timber harvest.
- The timber’s estimated value substantially exceeded the value of the bare land.
- The usufructuary sought to clear-cut all standing timber and replant with improved seedlings; the naked owner opposed and urged selective harvesting.
- The trial court approved the clear-cut; the court of appeal reversed and limited cutting to selective harvesting; both parties sought further review.

## Issues

1. Whether a usufructuary may clear-cut standing timber on timberland not previously operated as a tree farm or otherwise actively exploited for timber under Louisiana Civil Code article 562.
2. Whether the property’s limited, sporadic cutting history was sufficient to treat the tract as commercially exploited timberland such that broader harvesting rights would be permitted.
3. How article 562 and general usufruct duties to preserve the property’s substance balance the usufructuary’s enjoyment against the naked owner’s reversionary interest.

## Decision

- The court held that a usufructuary may not clear-cut previously unfarmed (previously unexploited) timberlands.
- The court permitted the usufructuary to institute a program of periodic selective cutting under prudent management principles.
- The court rejected the trial court’s approval of a full clear-cut and maintained a limitation consistent with the appellate court’s restriction to selective cutting.

## Legal Principles

- A usufructuary must act as a prudent administrator and may not destroy or substantially deplete the substance (corpus) of the property to the detriment of the naked owner.
- Under Louisiana Civil Code article 562, the scope of timber-harvesting rights depends on the land’s prior use; previously unexploited timberland does not permit clear-cutting by the usufructuary.
- Courts will restrict resource extraction that effectively converts the property’s principal value into immediate proceeds for the usufructuary while leaving the naked owner with materially diminished reversionary value.
- Selective harvesting of mature, diseased, or otherwise appropriate trees on a periodic basis may be allowed when consistent with prudent forestry management and preservation of the property’s substance.

## Conclusion

The court resolved the usufructuary–naked owner conflict by barring clear-cutting of timberland lacking a preexisting commercial timber-use regime, while allowing periodic selective cutting consistent with prudent management and protection of the naked owner’s future interest.


Kennedy v. Kennedy, 699 So. 2d 351 (La. 1997)