Bare Ownership: You Pay, But Can't Evict the Seller

Bare Ownership: You Buy the House but the Usufructuary Pays Nothing

Buying a property only to find the seller living there for free. This is the scenario in a bare ownership deal when the owner offers to stay on condition of paying alleged rent. It's a classic trap: whoever keeps the usufruct has the right to use and enjoy the property, so no lease agreement holds up and eviction is impossible. The buyer pays now and waits for the usufructuary's death to move in. Meanwhile, if the seller stops paying that "rent," there is no recourse.

What Is Bare Ownership and What Exactly Do You Buy?

Bare ownership is title to the property without the usufruct. The buyer acquires the naked property: they can sell it, mortgage it, or transfer it, but cannot use or enjoy the home until the usufruct ends, usually upon the death of the usufructuary. Banks do grant mortgages on bare ownership, though conditions and loan-to-value ratios are typically more restrictive than for full ownership purchases.

The misunderstanding here is confusing bare ownership with renting. If the seller retains the usufruct, they aren't renting anything; they are using something they still have the right to enjoy. Therefore, you cannot claim rent from them as if they were a tenant. A lease requires the landlord to cede usage rights, which never happens in this case.

Why the Usufructuary's "Rent" Is Just an Empty Promise

The arrangement described—selling bare ownership and staying while paying a monthly fee—has no clear legal basis. A usufructuary does not pay to live in their own home. If they sign a voluntary payment agreement, it isn't rental income, and if they stop paying, the buyer cannot initiate eviction proceedings for non-payment of rent. The remedy would be claiming a contractual debt through civil proceedings, which can drag on for years and often hits the debtor's insolvency wall.

Some argue the seller is seeking a reverse mortgage and, failing to get one from financial institutions, tries to replicate the scheme privately. The difference is that a reverse mortgage is offered by a regulated entity with guarantees, not by a private individual buying bare ownership in exchange for a promise of monthly payments.

The Real Risk: A Usufructuary Who Stops Paying but Stays

The most common scenario in these analyses is the usufructuary who pays for the first few months and then stops. Since they retain the usufruct, they keep the right to use and enjoy the property, meaning they cannot be evicted. The buyer ends up with a property they cannot occupy, that generates no income, and on which they continue paying mortgage installments if applicable.

Statistics work against the individual investor. A fund can spread risk across hundreds of transactions and calculate actuarial life expectancies. An individual buyer bets on one person: they might die next year or live past a hundred. That asymmetry distinguishes bare ownership as a financial product from bare ownership as a lottery ticket.

What Price Makes Sense and What Doesn't

According to calculations circulating in forums, bare ownership should be sold at a significant discount to market value. A minimum discount of 40% is often cited as a benchmark, along with the usufructuary being over 80 years old. The larger the discount and the older the age, the better the compensation for longevity and default risks.

If the seller intends to charge rent, the price of the bare ownership tends to rise, and the buyer assumes double risk: paying more and receiving less. The proposed alternative is to waive the rent and structure payments differently, such as paying a percentage of the house's value in monthly installments over a set period. This way, the buyer knows exactly what they are paying, and the seller maintains liquidity without promising rent they likely won't fulfill.

---

The analysis always stalls at the same point: there is no mechanism to guarantee collection while the usufruct remains active. You can sign contracts, make claims, and litigate. But the house remains occupied by someone with the legal right to occupy it. No clause fixes that.