When Mary mortgaged her usufruct for $100,000, what does this imply about the mortgage?

When Mary mortgaged her usufruct, it indicates that she used her right to benefit from property she does not own outright (the usufruct) as collateral for the loan. In Louisiana law, a usufruct grants the right to use and enjoy the property, but does not convey ownership, which rests with the naked owner.

The key aspect of this situation is that while Mary has the right to mortgage her usufruct, the mortgage does not create an obligation that binds the naked owner of the property. This means that the naked owner is not responsible for the mortgage debt, nor can the lender claim the property from the naked owner if Mary defaults on the mortgage. The lender can only look to Mary’s usufruct for satisfaction of the debt, emphasizing the distinction between her rights and those of the naked owner.

The other answer choices do not correctly capture the implications of mortgaging a usufruct under Louisiana law. The enforceability of the mortgage on the naked owner is a critical factor, and understanding this can clarify the broader concepts of property rights, usufructs, and the nuances of Louisiana title insurance and property law.