Roman Law and the Legal World of the Romans

Other Rights over Property

(because she can get a better price) the author. Usufruct is not thought of (primarily) in such commercial terms, so it does not need to run longer; it runs long enough to help a spouse left behind. (A term shorter than life could be fixed at the time it was created, though this seems to have been rare.) Technically, usufructs could not be resold – again, we see its noncommer cial origins – but there was a significant loophole. The holder of the usufruct could rent or sell the “enjoyment” of it. This made exploitation of the property easier, since you could take simple, fixed cash payment rather than having to run the old family farm yourself. Still, the technical holder of the usufruct remained a middleman between the owner and the end user. Moreover, he was a middleman in an important practical sense as well. The holder of any usufruct, whether rented out or not, had responsibilities to the owner. He couldn’t damage the property. If there was loss to the property – say, a window was blown out in a storm or animals in a flock died naturally over the course of a year – he had to make it good, whether out of the profits or out of his own resources. (The holder of the usu fruct was held to the standard of how a “good pater familias ” would care for his own property.) This provision is not surpris ing, and similar terms exist in other relationships in which one person has temporary custody of another’s property. In this case, however, there is a tighter and more specific restriction. The holder of a usufruct was not allowed to make changes that would alter the fundamental character of the property, even if these changes were arguably improvements – for example, replacing a small building with a larger one, replacing shade

145