## Facts

- John E. Heckert, Sr. and Anna I. Buch were married and acquired S. H. Kress & Company stock during the marriage.
- When Anna died intestate in 1938, the Kress stock was treated as community property, totaling 1,010 shares.
- In the 1938 succession proceedings, a judgment of possession addressed 710 shares, sending John Sr. into possession of an undivided one-half as owner and recognizing the two children—John E. Heckert, Jr. and Isabelle Heckert Hardie—as owners of the other one-half, subject to their father’s legal usufruct.
- An additional 300 shares, also belonging to the community, were not listed in the 1938 inventory or expressly covered by that judgment of possession.
- Despite the change in ownership recognized in the succession, the stock certificates remained issued in John Sr.’s name; he kept physical possession of the certificates and collected dividends.
- John Sr. remarried Eunice Knobloch on August 4, 1939. By law, that remarriage terminated his legal usufruct over the children’s inherited half of the community property.
- After the remarriage, John Sr. did not deliver the children’s shares to them, and the children did not demand delivery during his lifetime.
- John Sr. died on March 3, 1961. Only 300 shares of the original 1,010 were found among his effects.
- During the succession of John Sr.’s estate, it appeared that John Sr. had transferred 300 shares to Eunice and had sold or otherwise disposed of 410 other shares.
- The children sued Eunice Knobloch Heckert, individually and as executrix, contending that John Sr. could not validly donate or dispose of the children’s 505-share interest that had been subject to (and, after remarriage, freed from) his usufruct.
- Eunice argued, among other defenses, that any action for an accounting was prescribed because more than ten years had passed since the usufruct terminated upon her marriage to John Sr.
- The trial court ruled for the children, and Eunice appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the children owned an undivided one-half naked ownership interest in all 1,010 community shares, including the 300 shares omitted from the first succession inventory and judgment of possession.
2. Whether John Sr.’s legal usufruct over the children’s half terminated by operation of law upon his remarriage, and what duties followed from that termination.
3. Whether the children’s claims were barred by prescription based on the passage of time after the usufruct ended and the children’s failure to demand delivery during John Sr.’s lifetime.
4. Whether John Sr.’s alleged transfers and dispositions of shares could defeat the children’s ownership and, if not, whether his succession (through the executrix) was accountable for the missing shares or their value.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the children.
- The Kress stock was community property, and at Anna’s death the children immediately acquired naked ownership of an undivided one-half of the community stock by operation of law, including the 300 uninventoried shares.
- The omission of the 300 shares from the 1938 succession proceedings did not divest the children of their ownership interest in those shares.
- John Sr.’s legal usufruct over the children’s half terminated automatically when he remarried in 1939 under Louisiana Civil Code art. 916; continued possession of the certificates and collection of dividends did not convert the children’s ownership into John Sr.’s separate property.
- The succession was accountable to the children for their share of the stock, including shares not found in the estate, and Eunice’s prescription defense did not defeat the children’s claim under the facts presented.

## Legal Principles

- Under *le mort saisit le vif*, heirs acquire ownership interests immediately upon the decedent’s death; this applies to the decedent’s share of community assets, including stock.
- A surviving spouse’s legal usufruct over property inherited by the children from the deceased spouse terminates upon the surviving spouse’s remarriage (La. Civ. Code art. 916).
- Failure to list a community asset in a succession inventory or to mention it in a judgment of possession does not change the asset’s community character or extinguish heirs’ vested ownership rights.
- A former usufructuary’s continued possession of property after termination of the usufruct, without a juridical act transferring title, does not by itself defeat the naked owners’ rights.
- When property subject to a terminated usufruct is not returned, the succession of the former usufructuary may be required to restore the property or respond in value and account for fruits attributable to the naked owners’ interest.

## Conclusion

Succession of Heckert holds that the children remained naked owners of one-half of all 1,010 community shares of Kress stock—including 300 shares omitted from the first succession—and that the father’s legal usufruct over their half ended automatically upon his remarriage; his later retention and disposition of the stock did not defeat their ownership, and his succession was accountable to them for the missing shares or their value.


Succession of Heckert, 160 So. 2d 375 (1964)