Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 487, 492 (Ind.Ct.App.1984) (concluding that, when a dominant and servient tenant both use an easement, the court may apportion the cost of repairs between them); Bina v. Bina, 213 Iowa 432, 239 N.W. 68, 71 (1931) (allocating specific percentage shares of responsibility among the easement users); Drolsum v. Luzuriaga, 93 Md.App. 1, 611 A.2d 116, 125 (1992) (remanding for the trial court to consider the use and benefit of a relocated easement in effecting an equitable distribution of the burden of relocation); Marvin E. Nieberg Real Estate Co. v. Taylor-Morley-Simon, Inc., 867 S.W.2d 618, 623 (Mo.Ct.App.1993) (“[T]he general rule is that all users should contribute to maintenance in proportion to their use.”); Cohen v. Banks, 169 Misc.2d 374, 642 N.Y.S.2d 797, 800 (N.Y.Just.Ct.1996) (<HOLDING>); Lindhorst v. Wright, 616 P.2d 450, 454-55 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the dominant tenement a power company rather than the servient tenement had affirmative duties of inspection and repair related to its easement (B) holding that owners of a dominant estate had a duty to keep the easement in a proper state of repair to avoid damaging the servient estate through erosion (C) holding that the dominant and servient estates which made common and equal use of the main water line should be equally responsible for the cost of repair (D) holding that the burden on the servient estate cannot be increased without the consent of the owners of the servient estate and that the owner of the dominant estate to which the appurtenant easement is attached has no power to convey or expand use of that easement in connection with a tract of land owned by another (E) holding that an easement is not a separate estate when dominant and servient tracts are under the same ownership
Output (English): holding that owners of a dominant estate had a duty to keep the easement in a proper state of repair to avoid damaging the servient estate through erosion