Betsy Connor Bowen wrote:This is a surprising decision and I would really like to know more.
So would I. If it was a statutory association, it's hard to see how a court
could reach that conclusion unless the association itself structured its assessments that way. Under the 2006 statute, it would have flown in the face of the law, which required assessments to be made according to valuation only.
The judgement might make sense in the context of an informal association where the practice had been to pay inproportion to the length of road used, and there existed some sort of a promise to pay, I suppose.