Provides that the cost of maintaining and repairing or restoring an easement or right-of-way shall be shared by each owner of a benefited property and their costs shall be determined by and commensurate with the municipal appraisal of each property.
Summary
H5182 amends Rhode Island’s law governing maintenance of private easements and rights-of-way used to access residential property. In the absence of an enforceable written agreement, the bill assigns responsibility for maintaining, repairing, and restoring the easement or right-of-way to the owners of benefited residential properties, and it expressly includes snow removal as part of maintenance. It also provides that if more than one property benefits from the access way, the costs are to be shared in proportion to the benefit received by each property, rather than based on market value or assessed valuation.
The bill further states that if a benefited or burdened property owner, or their invitees, directly or indirectly damages the easement or right-of-way, that owner is solely responsible for the repair or restoration of the damaged portion. If an owner refuses to make repairs or pay their share after written demand, other affected owners may bring an action for specific performance or contribution in Superior Court. The written demand must include supporting documentation, such as engineering or contractor proposals, evaluations, applications, costs, and a detailed explanation of how the proportional share was calculated. Any existing written agreement on maintenance or cost-sharing controls over the statute if there is a conflict.
Impact
The bill would revise Chapter 34-9.1 of the General Laws by clarifying how maintenance and repair costs for private easements and rights-of-way are allocated among residential property owners. It creates a default rule for cost-sharing when no written agreement exists, limits the role of property valuation in determining shares, and gives affected owners a clearer statutory basis to seek contribution or specific performance in court. The measure would also affect property owners, neighbors sharing private access ways, and courts handling disputes over access-road maintenance and damage.
Sentiment
The available voting record indicates strong support for the bill, with the House passing it unanimously 70-0 on June 5, 2025. No committee transcript is available, so there is no recorded debate to suggest organized opposition or significant amendments in discussion. Overall, the bill appears to have been viewed as a practical clarification of responsibility for shared private access maintenance rather than a controversial policy change.
Contention
The main potential points of contention are how to fairly apportion costs among benefited properties and whether municipal assessment should play any role in that calculation, since the bill expressly excludes market value or assessed valuation from the benefit analysis. Another possible issue is the bill’s imposition of sole responsibility on an owner who damages the easement directly or indirectly, including through invitees, which could raise factual disputes over causation and responsibility. The requirement that written demands include detailed documentation may also be a point of dispute in enforcement cases, but no specific opposition is reflected in the available record.