Skip to main content
S2475AReal Estate

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

This bill allows property values to be considered when calculating shared maintenance costs for private roads and driveways.

Introduced68 Yea0 Nay7 Not voting
Population
Affected
15
Email Legislator
Introduced Feb 6, 2026Committee Senate Housing & Municipal Government

Plain-English Summary

This bill changes the rules for how neighbors share the costs of maintaining a shared private road, driveway, or right-of-way when there is no written agreement in place. Previously, the law explicitly stated that the market value or assessed value of the properties could not be used to figure out each owner's fair share of the maintenance costs. This bill removes that restriction, meaning property values can now be considered when calculating how much each homeowner must pay for upkeep, snow removal, and repairs.

For younger readers

Sometimes houses share a private road or driveway. When the road needs fixing or snow needs to be plowed, the neighbors have to share the cost. Before, the law said they could not look at how much each house was worth to decide who pays what. This bill changes that rule. Now, how much a house is worth can be used to help figure out each neighbor's fair share of the bill for fixing and clearing the shared road.

Who & Where It Applies

Impacted groups
Homeowners with shared drivewaysProperty owners on private roadsReal estate attorneysHomeowners associationsSuperior court judges
Impacted communities
All

Constitutional & Fiscal Check

None Likely. The bill merely amends the statutory default rules for private cost-sharing in civil property disputes when no written agreement exists. It does not implicate free speech, due process, or protection from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Estimated cost
None
Estimated revenue
None

Bill Analysis

Both viewpoints
For Progressives
  • Removing the ban on considering property values allows for a more progressive cost-sharing model where wealthier homeowners with more valuable properties can be asked to pay a larger, more equitable share of maintenance costs.
  • Protects lower-income individuals living in less expensive homes on shared private roads from being disproportionately burdened by flat-rate maintenance fees that ignore wealth disparities.
  • Provides courts with greater flexibility to determine a fair and equitable distribution of costs based on the actual financial standing and property wealth of the involved parties when resolving neighbor disputes.
  • Could lead to increased legal disputes and neighbor conflicts, forcing lower-income homeowners to spend money on lawyers if wealthier neighbors disagree on how property values should dictate costs.
  • Fails to mandate a progressive payment structure, only allowing property value to be considered, which means courts could still rule against lower-income homeowners in subjective disputes.
  • Does not provide any public funding or state assistance for maintaining private roads, leaving the financial burden entirely on private citizens regardless of their ability to afford sudden repair costs.
For Conservatives
  • Enhances private property rights by removing a strict government mandate that restricted exactly how the "benefit received" from an easement could be calculated.
  • Gives property owners and local courts more freedom to determine fair cost-sharing models without arbitrary government exclusions on what data can be considered.
  • Ensures that property owners with larger, more valuable estates who potentially draw more benefit from a shared access road can be held financially responsible for its upkeep, protecting smaller property owners from subsidizing them.
  • Could penalize success by forcing property owners with higher assessed home values to pay a larger share of maintenance costs, even if they use the road the exact same amount as their neighbors.
  • Creates unpredictability in property ownership, as homeowners might face arbitrary and fluctuating maintenance fees based on changing real estate market values rather than actual usage or wear and tear.
  • May increase frivolous litigation, as neighbors might weaponize the civil court system to force wealthier property owners to cover the vast majority of shared driveway or road expenses.

Votes

Loading votes...

Full Bill Text

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

It is enacted by the General Assembly as follows:

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.