Maintenance agreement for a shared driveway

[djjn]

Do I have legal recourse for forcing a maintenance agreement for shared driveway with legal easements for ingress and egress?

I have a driveway nearly a mile long. The first 3rd from public road is owned by party 1 An easement was granted here for further access to parcels further on, consummating 60 acres. The 60 acres have remained principally in the same hands, party 2, and myself, party 3, for more than 20 years and my parcel is last on the road.
Party 1 & 3 have worked amicably on maintenance of the road for 20 years. Party 2 is absentee and used the land for hunting primarily. On one occasion maintenance needs of road were addressed with the parties. Shared participation was proposed with consideration given for greater financial burden to primary users party 1&3 and work performed mutually and financial responsibilities fulfilled by the parties.

Party 2 sold 10 acres situated between Party 2 & 3, to party 4 who built a house. Party 4 mutually participated with maintenance of the road prior to building and during ownership. Party 4 went into ‘ bank’ foreclosure and party 2 managed to wind up acquiring the home and land. Party 4 now eliminated.

Party 2 remains an absentee owner & chooses not to participate in the winter maintenance unless he is at the property. He advised me that if I went away for the winter and he was there he would plow the road.

My home is an asset I would not leave without insuring that the road was maintained in the event service personnel needed access due to mechanical or adverse weather conditions to mitigate loss or casualty. Additionally I conveyed the necessity of keeping the road accessible for utility access in the event a power issue developed at one of two power sub bases along the easements. If the home suffered further damages or losses due to inability for the utility company to access, an insurer may deem the loss my responsibility for failure to maintain access where the utility could have restored power.

He does not seem to recognize or care that he benefits from the maintenance and more so if he should he have an issue. What is the successful legal recourse?
Thanks

 

[quincy]

Do I have legal recourse for forcing a maintenance agreement for shared driveway with legal easements for ingress and egress?

I have a driveway nearly a mile long. The first 3rd from public road is owned by party 1 An easement was granted here for further access to parcels further on, consummating 60 acres. The 60 acres have remained principally in the same hands, party 2, and myself, party 3, for more than 20 years and my parcel is last on the road.
Party 1 & 3 have worked amicably on maintenance of the road for 20 years. Party 2 is absentee and used the land for hunting primarily. On one occasion maintenance needs of road were addressed with the parties. Shared participation was proposed with consideration given for greater financial burden to primary users party 1&3 and work performed mutually and financial responsibilities fulfilled by the parties.

Party 2 sold 10 acres situated between Party 2 & 3, to party 4 who built a house. Party 4 mutually participated with maintenance of the road prior to building and during ownership. Party 4 went into ‘ bank’ foreclosure and party 2 managed to wind up acquiring the home and land. Party 4 now eliminated.

Party 2 remains an absentee owner & chooses not to participate in the winter maintenance unless he is at the property. He advised me that if I went away for the winter and he was there he would plow the road.

My home is an asset I would not leave without insuring that the road was maintained in the event service personnel needed access due to mechanical or adverse weather conditions to mitigate loss or casualty. Additionally I conveyed the necessity of keeping the road accessible for utility access in the event a power issue developed at one of two power sub bases along the easements. If the home suffered further damages or losses due to inability for the utility company to access, an insurer may deem the loss my responsibility for failure to maintain access where the utility could have restored power.

He does not seem to recognize or care that he benefits from the maintenance and more so if he should he have an issue. What is the successful legal recourse?
Thanks

please include the name of your state. Laws vary from state to state, sometimes in significant ways.

Thank you.

 

[djjn]

please include the name of your state. Laws vary from state to state, sometimes in significant ways.

Thank you.

My apologies, State of Wisconsin thank you

 

[justalayman]

I'm missing something here. You claim #2 benefits from the maintenance 1 and 3 perform yet #2 is an absentee owner. In other words, 1 and 3 pay for the wear and tear of the roadway they cause but you want 2 to share in those costs although he is an absentee owner and his use is very minimal and as such, causes very little weed and tear of the drive?

Do I have that right?

 

[LdiJ]

I'm missing something here. You claim #2 benefits from the maintenance 1 and 3 perform yet #2 is an absentee owner. In other words, 1 and 3 pay for the wear and tear of the roadway they cause but you want 2 to share in those costs although he is an absentee owner and his use is very minimal and as such, causes very little weed and tear of the drive?

Do I have that right?

Well, there is an additional proviso now because it appears that #2 now owns the property previously sold to party #4, and the house built upon that, so depending on whether or not someone is occupying that home (like a renter or a member of #2) it might not be such minimal use contributed to party #2 anymore.

 

[justalayman]

Well, there is an additional proviso now because it appears that #2 now owns the property previously sold to party #4, and the house built upon that, so depending on whether or not someone is occupying that home (like a renter or a member of #2) it might not be such minimal use contributed to party #2 anymore.

Op has said nothing about an occupant in prop #4. If there is he needs to say so.

 

[djjn]

clarification,

Party 2 for 20 years uses the easement. Five years ago built a pole building off of the easement further down the road making an additional drive to the building [and usage has increased]. Absentee in the sense, predominately recreational and hunting purposes. If one builds a large pole shed it seems an obvious intention to use the easement to access it, and assuming a greater responsibility to the maintenance of the road.

As indicated 1 &3 acknowledged limited use in the prior maintenance consideration and the greater users bore greater share as a reasonable expectation in its maintenance. Upon acquiring the foreclosed home, 2's father lived in it for two summers and was absentee for the winters. #2 accesses the home 2-3 times a month over the road which is being maintained.

Snow removal due to Wisconsin winters and blown and drifted snow is a significant impediment to ingress and egress. Certainly the users of the road for recreational or seasonal visitations to the now existent resident home constitutes a user and benefactor nonetheless. Reasonableness has prevailed by parties 1 & 3 in assuming greater responsibility with 2 maintaining a position of [no] responsibility.

All parties benefit from snow removal benefits, such as emergency access. Fire and medical emergency services have been necessary for parties #1 & 2.

 

[quincy]

clarification,

Party 2 for 20 years uses the easement. Five years ago built a pole building off of the easement further down the road making an additional drive to the building [and usage has increased]. Absentee in the sense, predominately recreational and hunting purposes. If one builds a large pole shed it seems an obvious intention to use the easement to access it, and assuming a greater responsibility to the maintenance of the road.

As indicated 1 &3 acknowledged limited use in the prior maintenance consideration and the greater users bore greater share as a reasonable expectation in its maintenance. Upon acquiring the foreclosed home, 2's father lived in it for two summers and was absentee for the winters. #2 accesses the home 2-3 times a month over the road which is being maintained.

All parties benefit from snow removal benefits, such as emergency access. Fire and medical emergency services have been necessary for parties #1 & 2.

How exactly is the driveway owned? Am I correct in understanding that Property #1 owns the driveway and Properties #2 and #3 hold easements to use the driveway?

If so, both you as Property #3 and Property #2 (with the absentee owner) should be considered the dominant estates. Property #1 should be considered the servient estate.

The owner of Property #1, as servient owner, would have NO duty to maintain the easement/driveway for you or Property #2.

Property #1 just cannot interfere with Property #3's rights or Property #2's rights to maintain the easement/driveway - and you and #2 cannot in turn, in your maintenance and use of the easement/driveway, harm #1's property.

 

[djjn]

reply for quincy

Quincy, I hope this answers question 1. The first 1/3 of the road comes through a field. Owner #1 (it's original owner that is) purchased a strip of land from the field owner, 27 feet wide and granted the farmer lifetime easement for ingress and ingress access to the field. Question 2; Each property in succession has ownership and easements for the subsequent respective parcels. It would not appear that Party 1 is a servient estate, although it may be, as it cannot possibly access his property on the other side of the field without maintenance required and therefore recognizes maintenance participation.

I follow all of your other thinking. A summary of the situation is: Party 1 cannot get to his home without maintaining 1/3 of the road. Party 2 cannot get to his home and pole barn without party 1 maintaining the first 1/3. Party 3 cannot get to his home without party 1 maintaining the first 1/3 and party 2 maintaining the second 1/3 It is to be noted each of the owners has their own individual drives (of 100-250') off the main drive/road which are completely their own deal.

I hope it helps clarify a bit more. I apologize for not including it. Just didn't want information overload. But your questions helped me see you could use more.
Again since Party 2 is accessing the property during the winter months on weekends 2-3 times and someone has been living in the house during summer months it seems this constitutes a user and I'm not sure it should anymore be considered absentee or minimal. Additionally he never comes to the property until days after a snowfall and if the snow fall was occurring on a weekend that weekend is skipped altogether.

Do I have any recourse to force a maintenance agreement if Party 2 continues to ignore any responsibility. Thank you

 

[quincy]

Quincy, I hope this answers question 1. The first 1/3 of the road comes through a field. Owner #1 (it's original owner that is) purchased a strip of land from the field owner, 27 feet wide and granted the farmer lifetime easement for ingress and ingress access to the field. Question 2; Each property in succession has ownership and easements for the subsequent respective parcels. It would not appear that Party 1 is a servient estate, although it may be, as it cannot possibly access his property on the other side of the field without maintenance required and therefore recognizes maintenance participation.

I follow all of your other thinking. A summary of the situation is: Party 1 cannot get to his home without maintaining 1/3 of the road. Party 2 cannot get to his home and pole barn without party 1 maintaining the first 1/3. Party 3 cannot get to his home without party 1 maintaining the first 1/3 and party 2 maintaining the second 1/3 It is to be noted each of the owners has their own individual drives (of 100-250') off the main drive/road which are completely their own deal.

I hope it helps clarify a bit more. I apologize for not including it. Just didn't want information overload. But your questions helped me see you could use more.
Again since Party 2 is accessing the property during the winter months on weekends 2-3 times and someone has been living in the house during summer months it seems this constitutes a user and I'm not sure it should anymore be considered absentee or minimal. Additionally he never comes to the property until days after a snowfall and if the snow fall was occurring on a weekend that weekend is skipped altogether.

Do I have any recourse to force a maintenance agreement if Party 2 continues to ignore any responsibility. Thank you

Without checking on this (and I will try to do this later) and if memory serves (which it may not), my feeling is that you as the last property owner on the driveway must maintain the entire stretch if you wish to use the easement and Property #2 and Property #1 choose not to maintain their portions of the driveway for their own use. This would be absent any agreement between the property owners to the contrary.

In an ideal world, you would maintain one-third of the driveway and Property #2 would maintain one-third of the driveway and Property #1 would maintain one-third of the driveway but you, as Property #3, are the only property owner who needs the entire driveway maintained for your use. I do not believe that the others have an obligation to you to make your passage easier. They just cannot make it more difficult for you by, for example, putting boulders or a brick wall or a fence in your path.

But, again, I will check to make sure that what I think I remember of property law is remembered correctly - or someone else will no doubt come along to correct me if I am wrong.