In short
When a usufruct is attached, the owner’s sale does not stop of its own accord because of this attachment. The attachment is entered on the right of the usufruct holder. The owner keeps the ownership of the immovable property in hand. Use and enjoyment are with the usufruct holder. The ownership that is kept in hand is called bare ownership. This attachment is not an attachment placed on the owner’s share. The sale does not erase the usufruct. The buyer takes the bare ownership together with the usufruct.
This article answers that attachment of a usufruct and attachment of the owner’s share are not the same result. It does not answer an annotation that runs onto the whole of the share, a family-home record, or a mortgage sale.
The usufruct line is not the owner’s share
On the title, the owner’s column and the usufruct column are separate. If the attachment memorandum was written in the name of the usufruct holder, that person is the addressee. An attachment of a share written in the owner’s name is not hidden inside this memorandum. If the two annotations stand side by side, both are read. One is not the release of the other. If the column is empty, the right is not completed from the neighbouring column.
If the period of the usufruct is written on the title, that period is read. If a period is not written, a period is not added to this text as a figure. A record that appears without a period and a record with a period are not the same result. Which it is is read from the column. If the column writes for life, or a specified day, that writing is the basis. If the writing is faint, the faint place is not completed.
An attachment that runs onto the owner’s share gives rise to the own result of the annotation on the immovable property. That result sits under attachment of immovable property. This text does not repeat how that annotation locked the transfer. The attachment on the usufruct column is not treated as carried onto the owner’s column. Acting as if it had been carried is not built without a land-registry writing. The writing should show which column it was entered on. If it does not show that, both rights are not treated as attached.
Why the owner’s sale does not stop of its own accord
If there is no separate attachment annotation on the owner’s share, transfer of the bare ownership does not stop of its own accord by the attachment on the usufruct column being shown as the ground. An attachment entered on the owner’s share gives rise to the result that the annotation is not erased when that share is transferred. That result sits under can attached immovable property be sold. Attachment of the usufruct does not carry this result onto the owner’s share. This text does not build the condition of release, or a petition to set the auction aside.
The usufruct annotation limits the owner’s sale even before the attachment. The buyer takes it subject to the usufruct. This limit does not mean the attachment locked the owner’s share. Even if there is no attachment, the usufruct stands. Even if there is an attachment, the owner’s share is not treated as attached while there is no separate annotation. If the transfer contract says the usufruct will lift, the annotation on the title is not erased by this sentence. Erasure depends on a writing of release or of striking off. If there is no writing, the annotation stands.
If the buyer became the owner without taking a waiver from the usufruct holder, the waiver is treated as absent. If the waiver was entered on the title, it is read. A waiver document that was not entered does not drop the annotation of its own accord. The date of the document can be before or after the date of the attachment. The order depends on the two dates standing on the document. If there is no date, the waiver is not completed as older than the attachment.
In whose name the attachment was written
If the debtor is the holder of the usufruct, the creditor’s target is this right. The owner does not take on the usufruct holder’s debt merely because the owner’s name appears on the title. If the usufruct holder’s own right was attached for the owner’s debt, the holder separates that with their own status. A memorandum written in a mixed way is not completed as having attached both rights. The name is read from the column of the right. If the name and the column conflict, the conflict is written. The conflict is not spread in silence onto both rights.
If the memorandum carries two names, both the owner and the usufruct holder, which name is the debtor is read from the enforcement table. If only one is the debtor on the table, the other does not become the debtor because of the second name on the memorandum. The second name shows to whom the service went. Service does not widen the subject of the attachment. The subject is the column the annotation was entered on.
A family-home annotation is not attachment of a usufruct. That record sits under a family-home annotation. A homestead claim is a claim of a dwelling suited to the person’s condition, and it is under a homestead complaint. Attachment of a usufruct does not mean that complaint was accepted. A right of habitation is not the same column as a usufruct either. A habitation record is not pasted onto this attachment. A record that is pasted does not change the name of the column. The holder of a right of habitation is not read as the usufruct holder. If the two rights are written separately on the title, they stay separate.
Which purse the price goes to
When the usufruct is turned into money, what is the subject of the sale is the usufruct, not the immovable property itself. The auction price looks to the file of the usufruct debtor. When the owner sells the bare ownership to a third person, that price belongs to the owner as a rule. This price does not enter the usufruct file of its own accord. For it to enter, a separate attachment of the owner’s claim, or of the sale price, is required. If that attachment writing is not there, the absence is written. An oral agreement does not have a price that did not enter the file treated as collected.
The notice of a usufruct auction is not a notice that the whole of the immovable property was sold. If the notice says the bare ownership is being sold as well, and the annotation shows only the usufruct, the conflict is written. The conflict does not make the owner’s share the subject of the auction as well. If the buyer took the usufruct, the buyer does not become the owner. The owner is the owner of the bare ownership so long as the usufruct has not lifted. The lifting is read from the striking-off line on the title.
If the mortgage is on the owner, attachment of the usufruct does not erase the mortgage. The mortgage route sits under turning a mortgage into money. This text does not write the mortgage sale, or the order of rank. The mortgage creditor does not take the price of the usufruct auction of their own accord as if it were their own rank. The rank is not built before the document is seen. If there is no document, priority is not written. If the mortgage was created on the usufruct, this mortgage is not treated as having pledged the owner’s bare ownership separately. Which right is pledged is read from the title column.
Enjoyment and transfer of ownership do not get mixed
If the usufruct holder is using the property, or taking its produce, this use does not stop the owner’s sale of its own accord. The use is the content of the usufruct. The content does not mean the attachment jumped onto the owner’s share. If the lease was given by the usufruct holder, the rent belongs to the usufruct holder as a rule. For this price to enter the owner’s file, a separate attachment writing is required. If there is no writing, the rent is not treated as deposited with the owner’s creditor.
The usufruct holder can transfer the right to a third person. The transfer does not erase the attachment on the usufruct. The transferee takes it together with the attachment. If the transfer contract says the attachment will lift, the land registry does not strike it off by this sentence. If there is no striking-off writing, the annotation stands. If the owner is not a party to this transfer, the owner’s signature is not looked for. A signature that is not looked for does not announce the transfer invalid. Validity is read from the usufruct-transfer line on the title. If there is no line, the transfer is not treated as having happened.
If it is written on the title that the usufruct has ended, the attachment is not completed as if it were continuing on a right that has ended. If there is no writing of ending, the right is not treated as finished. A claim of death, or of expiry of the period, does not drop the annotation without a document. If the document conflicts with the title record, both are kept. One is not the other’s striking-off writing.
The attachment of the usufruct may have been served on the owner. Service does not make the owner the debtor. The subject of the service is making the annotation on the usufruct column known to the owner. The notice does not mean a second attachment was entered on the bare ownership. If the owner writes, in the petition given on the service, that the owner’s own share was not attached, this writing does not lift the usufruct attachment of its own accord. Lifting is read by the striking off on the usufruct column, or by the release in the enforcement file. If there is a separate attachment on the owner’s share, that attachment is not an annex of this petition. The two attachments stand on two columns. If one is missing, the other is not written in its place.
If the usufruct holder and the owner are the same person, the two columns are still read separately. The same name does not carry the usufruct attachment onto the owner’s share of its own accord. If a single name is written to two rights on the title, the annotation of each right is looked for in its own column. If there is no attachment in one column, that right is not treated as attached. A claim of the person’s death does not drop the annotation before the population record and the striking-off line on the title stand side by side. If there is no record, the right is not treated as having ended.
Conclusion
Attachment of a usufruct is not the same result as attachment of the owner’s share. The owner’s sale does not stop of its own accord because of this attachment. The sale does not erase the usufruct. The price of the bare ownership does not pass to the usufruct file if there is no separate attachment. If the column is empty, the right is not completed. Enjoyment does not lock the transfer of ownership. The frame sits on the enforcement and bankruptcy law page. For reading together which column the attachment is on, the contact line is open. The basis is the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code No. 2004.