Re: Road Maintenance vs. improvement

You can have our CA member attorney review the easement terms and give you your options. Challenging this decision isn't something you can realistically do armed only with your personal opinion.

Re: Road Maintenance vs. improvement

Overburdening an easement and share of maintenance expenses are somewhat overlapping concepts, but still separate. True overburdening is use of the easement beyond what the terms of the grant of easement would allow. The contractor's use may or may not be an overburden - very likely it is, but I can't be sure. Overburden may be a ground to terminate an easement.

On the other hand, maintenance of an easement is ordinarily apportioned according to use, whether or not the use of a party is an overburden. The obligation to pay on a use basis can be modified by contract or within the grant or reservation of the easement itself. Since you have an agreement, I think you must read the maintenance provisions very thoughtfully to see if you can predict what a court might rule on your issues.

I would say that a road maintenance committee, entrusted with scarce funds, would exercise poor judgment to make improvements before needed repairs, or to the exclusion of needed repairs, unless the improvements themselves took care of the need for the repairs (e.g., if straightening out a tight curve eliminated a culvert that was in need of replacement). There is a complex set of legal principles governing whether a director's or manager's bad judgment is actionable or not. In general, choices that are merely unlucky in result, or possibly even bordering on rash, are forgivable if the manager or director gave the consequences and alternatives due consideration and actually exercised judgment; but if they act without due regard for alternatives and consequences, or take inappropriate risks, they might be subject to suit. For more information, research the "business judgment rule."