Could someone please clarify. I understood the Private Ways statute is 3101-6. Now I see MRS Title 23 3121 Responsibility for cost of repairs to and maintenance of private roads that benefit residential properties

Section 4 is particularly concerning (for ease I’ll quote)

Conflict. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this section and an agreement, restriction, covenant, declaration, road association or method elected in section 3101 existing on or entered into after the effective date of this section, the terms of the agreement, restriction, covenant, declaration, road association or method elected in section 3101 control.”

To me this says if the Road Association puts a provision in it’s bylaws which are in conflict with the law (say for example a 5% assessment limitation instead of the statutory 1% limitation), the provisions of the bylaws “control”. Can this possibly be true? Bylaws in violation of the statute surely can’t take precedence over the law and make the law irrelevant.

Clarification would be greatly appreciated. 

Yes, Ray is correct.  The whole reason for the passage of 23 MRS section 3121 is so that a lender could be sure a property being sold would remain accessible.  So where there is a private road with any form of road association or maintenance agreement, no matter how informal, that provides assurance that the access will be maintained.  Section 3121 was intended to kick in ONLY when there is no sort of arrangement for seeing that the road gets needed maintenance.

Unfortunately, as often happens with new legislation, there are a few bugs that still need to be worked out.  The bill as originally presented would have divided the cost of maintenance only between owners of residential  properties.  That meant that if there was a business that did heavy trucking over the road, (for example if the road served a wood lot, lumber mill, or gravel pit,) the owners of that business would have no obligation to share in the cost of maintenance even though their use of the road would likely cause much more damage than residential use.

When that flaw was pointed out, the bill was re-worded to assure that all property owners  would share in the cost of maintenance.  Unfortunately, somewhere along the line the paragraph on enforcement got changed back so it only allows a residential property owner to sue another residential property owner who does not pay their share.  There is no method of enforcing payment by the owner of a non-residential property.

But to your question directly, if there is a road association in place, section 3121 does not apply, and therefore there is no conflict.