Bare ownership without usufruct: Inheriting a house you cannot use

Bare ownership and lifetime usufruct: Inheriting without using the house

A 35-year-old man inherits the bare ownership of a townhouse, a rustic plot with no value, and a small account from his father. The rest—including the full contents of the residence, an Audi Q5, and the lifetime usufruct of the house—goes to the deceased's partner, a woman in her 60s. She claims she did not cohabit with him and stopped caring for him when cancer struck. The case highlights how inheritance unfolds when a will defies family expectations.

The dilemma is arithmetic and legal, not sentimental. The heir rents a shared flat, has no savings, and faces temporary contracts. The short answer: usufruct prevails. The long answer involves complex calculations: what is a house worth that you cannot enter?

What is inherited and what remains in limbo

The will splits two rights over the same property. The son receives bare ownership: legal title but no right to use or enjoy the house until the usufruct ends. The father's partner receives the lifetime usufruct: she can live there or rent it out while alive. Until she passes, the bare owner has the title but little else.

Crucially, the father could leave the usufruct to anyone. There is no illegality, even if the split feels unfair. The law mandates only the forced heirship, known as the legítima. In Galicia, the forced heirship is 25%. This 25% is the minimum protected share for children; the rest is free.

What bare ownership is truly worth

Here lies the discouraging calculation. Some argue bare ownership is an investment: the older the usufructuary, the lower the usufruct percentage and the higher the bare ownership value. A common formula uses 90 years minus the usufructuary's age: for a 70-year-old, usufruct is ~20%, leaving 80% for the bare owner. At 60, the bare ownership value drops sharply.

The problem is market reality, not theory. No one buys bare ownership of an occupied home without a steep discount due to years of waiting. Sellers negotiate with specialized funds, not individuals. The heir sent a burofax proposing a 40/60 joint sale without response.

Legal exits that do exist

The usufructuary can sell her right, but not the property itself. If she sells, the bare owner has a 60-day right of first refusal to match the offer. This is the cleanest path to reunify ownership.

Another option is mortgaging the property to buy out the usufruct. This requires both parties to negotiate and the bank to accept a property burdened by a lifetime usufruct. In this case, relations are broken, and no agreement seems likely.

When the problem is timing, not just the house

The background involves labor precarity. The heir describes 15 years of temporary work until age 28, unable to move out. The inheritance is not just a property dispute but the difference between lifelong renting and owning land.

The bare owner pays expenses like property tax and maintenance, which can count toward certain aid programs. This nuance reduces the heir's liquidity while adding obligations.

---

Some argue rejecting an illiquid inheritance is better; others say renouncing it gifts the asset to the next in line. Both have logic, but neither answers the core question. The value of a home stripped from its occupant is not set by the cadastre but by the urgency of the seller. And that number remains elusive.