Liferent (usufruct)

Question 1

Stronach’s Excrs v Robertson

Answer 1

1. The fiar was rather concerned that the liferenter was not in fact obeying the requirement not to trash the property
2. Ultimately, the property is still owned by the fiar, so if the liferenter is diminishing its value, that is a problem
3. The fiar went to court and asked the court whether they could grant a decree ad factum praestandum
4. A decree ad factum praestandum is an order by the court that somebody is going to do something
5. The fiar wanted the court to order the liferenter to stop making a mess of the house, failing which he wanted damages
6. The court held that they were not going to make that order and that they were not going to order damages either
7. The history of Scots law suggested that those remedies do not exist for enforcing liferents
8. The court said that the only remedy that has been recognised for a long time is caution
9. Caution requires the liferenter to lodge money to the court that will cover any expenses of any repairs that might need to be done