Skip to main content
H7763AReal Estate

Property - Maintenance of Private Easements and Rights- Of-Way

This bill allows property values to be used when calculating a property owner's share of private right-of-way maintenance costs.

Introduced70 Yea0 Nay5 Not voting
Population
Affected
15
Email Legislator
Introduced Feb 12, 2026Committee House Judiciary

Plain-English Summary

This bill changes the rules for how neighbors share the costs of maintaining private easements and rights-of-way, such as shared driveways or private roads, when there is no written agreement in place. Previously, the law stated that the assessed or market value of the properties could not be considered when figuring out each owner's share of the maintenance costs. This bill removes that restriction, meaning that property values can now be used as a factor when determining how much each property owner must pay for upkeep, snow removal, and repairs.

For younger readers

Sometimes neighbors share a private road or driveway. If they don't have a written contract about who pays for repairs or snow shoveling, the law says they have to split the cost based on how much they use it. Before, the law said they were not allowed to look at how much each house was worth to figure out who pays what. This new bill changes the law by crossing out that rule. Now, how expensive a house is can be looked at when deciding how to split the bill for fixing the shared road.

Who & Where It Applies

Impacted groups
Property owners with shared easementsHomeowners with shared drivewaysProperty owners on private roadsReal estate developersCivil court judges
Impacted communities
All

Constitutional & Fiscal Check

None Likely. The bill simply adjusts state property law guidelines regarding how private parties share costs for maintaining shared private infrastructure in the absence of a contract. It does not implicate free speech, due process, or unreasonable searches.

Estimated cost
None
Estimated revenue
None

Bill Analysis

Both viewpoints
For Progressives
  • By allowing property values to be considered, wealthier individuals with higher-value properties could be required to pay a larger share, making the cost distribution more equitable.
  • Removing this restriction protects owners of smaller or lower-valued properties from being forced to pay an equal or disproportionate share of maintenance compared to their wealthier neighbors.
  • It allows courts to use a more holistic and flexible approach to determine "benefit received," ensuring that the financial burden of shared infrastructure doesn't disproportionately harm disadvantaged property owners.
  • The bill does not strictly mandate a progressive fee structure based on wealth; it merely removes a restriction, which could lead to expensive legal battles that wealthier neighbors are better equipped to fight.
  • If property values spike due to gentrification, a lower-income long-term resident might suddenly be deemed liable for higher maintenance costs simply because their home's assessed value increased on paper.
  • The bill continues to rely on private enforcement and cost-sharing for infrastructure rather than expanding public services to maintain these shared routes for the community.
For Conservatives
  • By removing state-mandated restrictions on how to calculate "benefit received," the bill allows for more flexibility and freedom for courts to decide based on all available market facts.
  • It eliminates a specific government regulation that dictated what factors could or could not be considered in private real estate disputes, reducing government micromanagement.
  • Allows the free market value of properties to be a valid metric in determining infrastructure benefits, aligning with conservative principles that value market-based assessments.
  • Allowing property values to determine maintenance costs could act as a de facto wealth tax, penalizing individuals who have invested in improving their properties by making them pay more for shared roads.
  • Without the explicit restriction, activist judges might use property values to force wealthier property owners to subsidize the infrastructure costs of their neighbors.
  • Real estate developers and corporate property owners sharing easements may face unpredictable maintenance costs if their higher commercial property values are used to force them to pay the majority of the upkeep.

Votes

Loading votes...

Full Bill Text

2 versions
Changes to existing Rhode Island law · 1 addition · 3 deletions

SECTION 1. Section 34-9.1-2 of the General Laws in Chapter 34-9.1 entitled "Maintenance of Private Easements and Rights-Of-Way" is hereby amended to read as follows: 34-9.1-2. Maintenance of private easement and rights-of-way.

(a) In the absence of an enforceable, written agreement to the contrary, the owner of any residential real property that benefits from an easement or right-of-way, the purpose of which is to provide access to the residential real property, shall be responsible for the cost of maintaining the easement or right-of-way in good repair and the cost of repairing or restoring any damaged portion of the easement or right-of-way. The maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, the removal of snow from the easement or right-of-way.

(b) In the absence of an enforceable, written agreement, the cost of maintaining and repairing or restoring the easement or right-of-way shall be shared by each owner of a benefited property in proportion to the benefit received by each property; provided, that the market value or assessed valuation of each such property shall not be taken into consideration in the calculation of benefit received.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of this section, any owner of a benefited property or any owner of a burdened property who directly or indirectly damages any portion of the easement or right-of way shall be solely responsible for repairing or restoring the portion damaged by that owner.

(d) If any owner of a benefited or burdened property refuses to repair or restore a damaged portion of an easement or right-of-way in accordance with this section, or fails, after a demand in writing, to pay the owner’s proportion of the cost of maintaining or repairing or restoring the easement or right-of-way in accordance with subsection (b), an action for specific performance or contribution may be brought in the superior court against the owner by other owners of benefited or burdened properties, either jointly or severally.

(e) In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this section and an agreement described in subsections (a) or (b) of this section, the terms of the agreement shall control.

SECTION 2. This act shall take effect upon passage.