Log in

    



 

Maine Alliance for Road Associations

Experience dealing with a contentious road owner?

<< First  < Prev   1   2   3   Next >  Last >> 
  • 17 Dec 2009 10:23 PM
    Reply # 258376 on 201010
    Anonymous member (Administrator)
    Ray Ronan wrote:Was wondering if anyone has experienced dealings with a contentious "road owner" that has resented the formation of the association.  He resides but does not own a home on the road that he owns.  The way I read the law he does not even have a vote as he does not traditionally benefit from the road.  Is he included in any association dealings/decisions?  Thoughts?

    Ray,

    Wondering what you mean when you say "he owns the road?" How did that come about?

    How does he reside there -- as a renter, in a tent, as a squatter -- what? Because as owner of a parcel -- if he does own a parcel -- on the road, he benefits. The road is his access and if he did not have it he would be up a creek.

    Not owning a home on a parcel does not mean that the owner of that parcel does not benefit. The value of the parcel is enhanced by a road, by access, no matter whether there is a home on it or not. It all comes down to whether he owns the parcel or not.

    Betsy

  • 18 Dec 2009 1:17 PM
    Reply # 258594 on 201010
    Deleted user

    Hi Betsy,

    He is the current developer, in a long line of folks, that created this road along with the buildings using the selling to relatives plan instead of sub-division rules.  Currently, other than owning the road, he has only one undeveloped house lot that has been declared an "illegal sub-division" by the town.  He was living in a house on the road that he helped build then sold to one of his friends (but continued to live there LOL) and it looks like the house is now in foreclosure and no one is living there. If you own land on this road and wish to put in a driveway that connects to it, you must pay him a substantial fee.  We have several parcels of land that are not improved in any way and as we interpret the statute, they do not directly benefit from the road as they do not have access.  You raise a good point about value due to the existence of the road but we do not apply it that way as the landowners may find other options to build a driveway.  Thanks for your work on this website, enjoy the info going back and forth.

     

  • 06 May 2010 8:34 AM
    Reply # 336527 on 201314
    Deleted user
    Betsy Connor Bowen wrote:
    Ray Ronan wrote:Was wondering if anyone has experienced dealings with a contentious "road owner" that has resented the formation of the association.  He resides but does not own a home on the road that he owns.  The way I read the law he does not even have a vote as he does not traditionally benefit from the road.  Is he included in any association dealings/decisions?  Thoughts?
    So he resides in a home that he rents? Because renters can be road association members and vote.

    What do you mean by "he owns the road?"

    "Benefit from the road" -- does he use the road? Or does he have property whose use requires use of the road even though he many not be availing himself of that use at the moment?

    I'm thinking his contentiousness is the real problem. His standing may not be, but that's unclear. If he's not in the majority, the process will take care of him; try that, if possible.

     

    " If he's not in the majority the process will take care of him".I unfortunantly feel that this is one of the big problems with title 23 .It gives power over to a majority who can base their votes on that power for their own personal gain , which in many cases takes owners personal private property rights away from them if they can't afford to protect themselves in court. A majority rule doesn't insure fairness, and certainly doesn't create community. I personnaly feel that the states should have a financial responsibility in settleing disputes created by title 23 on privately owned R of Ways.Otherwise in most of these cases once again who ever has the most money ( and in many cases under title 23 the Votes) wins. Rather it 's right, fair, or not !
  • 07 May 2010 10:31 AM
    Reply # 337094 on 257162
    Deleted user
    none * wrote:
    anonymous wrote:A "right-of-way" means just that - your right to pass over this portion of the road, but you CANNOT build a road, or maintain the road per se.....The owner holds all right to this property, but cannot stop you from walking or driving (if it is a road) across this property.....The owner cannot put up blockages or charge for passage...


    I was interested in your concern and decided to look into it further. Found the following from

    Law Office of Elliott R. Teel

    http://www.ertlaw.com/articles/right-of-way_easement

    http://downeastlaw.wordpress.com/2008/01/10/right-of-way-easements-in-maine/

    ....."A right-of-way easement grants the holder only the right to cross the land, but not to change the nature or location of the right-of-way. For instance, if a right-of-way was granted to allow foot traffic down to a beach, the foot path may not be converted into a paved road. While the holder of the easement can do basic maintenance of the right-of-way, they may not cause an undue burden to the land owner."

    So much more information both links have same article one is his office.

    Best of Luck

     

     

     


<< First  < Prev   1   2   3   Next >  Last >> 

                            The Maine Alliance for Road Associations


Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software