Level

LEVEL. — This name was given to a special form of agrarian contract, by which a grantor (livellante) conferred the usufruct of a piece of land on a grantee (livellario) for a determined period of time, under specific conditions, with the burden of an annual payment (canon) as consideration.

1. The l. is a form of emphyteusis (v.), slightly modified. In the Middle Ages it was the most widely diffused type of agrarian concession in Italy, so that it may be regarded as the characteristic medieval form of Italian emphyteusis. It was called the pactum by antonomasia. It also passed under the name of precaria, a designation under which it was known and widely used outside Italy as well. Its name derived from the form of the instrument originally used in stipulating the contract, since it had become customary to request the concession of the land by means of a written petition addressed to the grantor, called libellum, charta, pagina libelli, etc. Sometimes the l. is found written by the grantor himself, in which case its delivery marks the completion of the transaction; at other times there were two libelli, exchanged reciprocally between grantor and livellario as notitiae of the concession that had taken place. By the name of l., more often of libellaria, it was customary to indicate also the relationship arising from the contract, as well as the canon that represented the counter-payment. The relationship was also frequently indicated by the circumlocution tenere o colere per chartam o per libellum: lands granted in this way were said to be inchartati or libellati. In the l. too, as in emphyteusis, at the moment of stipulation the livellario was required to give the grantor the calciario, also called the libellaticum or intratura, originally represented by a pair of shoes, a symbol of the consideration owed for the concession.

2. Beginning in the early Middle Ages, with the passage of landed property from the collective and familial regime proper to the barbarian-Germanic peoples to the individual private form, the original concept of single ownership had gradually been replaced by the concept of divided ownership, which, accentuating the Romanistic distinction between usus and dominium, between enjoyment of a thing and lordship over it, had led to the characteristic medieval distinction between direct domain and useful domain, giving rise on that basis to a notable complex of new relationships, among which, alongside the benefice, emphyteusis, the fief and other analogous forms of possession, the l. held special prominence. It is already mentioned in documents of the 6th century. St. Gregory the Great speaks of it, for example, in his letters, and Cassiodorus in the Variae.

It is maintained that originally the ecclesiastical benefice had its primitive expression, under the name of precaria, in a leasehold relationship between a bishop, as grantor, and a cleric with the care of souls, as grantee, and that the l. originated from this (c. 72, C. 12, q. 2; cc 4-6, C. 10, q. 2, etc.); in any case, the ecclesiastical origin of this contract seems undeniable. The fact is that the Church made very wide use of it to turn its lands to profit, and promoted its introduction and diffusion, precisely because by virtue of the specific differences that distinguished it from emphyteusis, especially the temporariness of the bond and the pact of reversion in favor of the grantor, it proved to be the form of concession best suited to the need to safeguard the canonical principle of the inalienability of ecclesiastical goods, of which, while permitting the alienation of the usufruct, it safeguarded the ownership to the greatest degree.

3. Originally, the l. was a contractual relationship that brought the grantee the enjoyment of a true real right with the corresponding possessory protection, and it had the approximate character of a lease ad laborandum et meliorandum, as is said in the formulas of the time. In this chiefly it is distinguished from emphyteusis, which corresponded almost to a disguised alienation. But later, when the ownership of the lands was attributed to the livellati, the feudal relationship supervened, the leasehold canon became a real burden, and the transaction of concession was called investiture.

Unlike emphyteusis, the l. was as a rule for a determined time, and generally lasted no more than 25 years. There is no lack, however, of l. fixed for longer periods, for the whole life of the investee or even for an indeterminate time. On the expiry of the term, the contract was not considered expired, but had to be renewed. The periodic renewal, introduced in l. for an indeterminate time, in order to safeguard the owner's right against prescription, was called recognitio in dominium and entailed, at the moment of its execution, the payment to the grantor of a small canon (laudemio), which could be a new symbolic calciario. Sometimes the right of withdrawal of the livellario at the end of the contract was agreed upon. In ecclesiastical l. the pact of reversion in favor of the grantor was always included.

4. The rights and duties were substantially the same in emphyteusis and in the l., except that in the latter other burdens and servitudes accompanied the canon. The livellario was obliged to carry out the field work, keep the land in good condition and promote the necessary improvements, which then remained acquired to the land itself, that is, to the owner. Taxes and the annual canon (census, iustitia, dominica) weighed upon him, the latter consisting, in general, of a quota of the fruits, proportionate to the land, almost never of a sum of money. In the feudal era, it was sometimes more a symbolic acknowledgment than a commercially assessable reality. The full usufruct of the land represented the right of the livellario. This right was transmissible to legitimate heirs, but its alienation and transfer to unrelated heirs was not permitted without the consent of the owner. Often, however, subletting in l. to third parties was allowed. The relationship could be extinguished either by free act of the parties or also by forfeiture. Originally, failure to pay the canon entailed the forfeiture of the l. Later, however, it became customary to substitute penalties in the contract itself. In more recent times, causes of extinction were also the laws for the redemption of the canon.

5. With the end of the Middle Ages, a gradual juridical regulation began for the l., which little by little brought it to merge with emphyteusis. A revival of notable importance occurred only in the 18th century, in Tuscany, with the leasehold system introduced by Peter Leopold. By the time of the codifications, the identification with emphyteusis could be called complete. The Napoleonic Code transformed l. into perpetual annuities. The Italian Civil Code of 1865 did not distinguish them from emphyteusis (arts. 1556-67); it nevertheless wished to preserve the original regulation of those constituted in earlier epochs, while granting the right of redemption (Transitory Provisions, arts. 29, 30). In the Code currently in force only emphyteusis is considered (arts. 957-77). The CIC too ignores the l. as an autonomous figure of contract, so that the canonical norms on emphyteusis must be applied to old l. (can. 1542; v. ENFITEUSI).

Zaccaria da San Mauro