Opinion ID: 4572403
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Large Lots

Text: ¶ 37. We similarly conclude that AHPOA was entitled to judgment as a matter of law with respect to its annual assessment for Large Lot owners. Plaintiffs do not dispute the equitable and statutory requirement that they contribute ratably. They simply argue that they receive no benefit at all from the roads and thus should not have to contribute. ¶ 38. This argument is without merit for the reasons identified by the trial court. Plaintiffs purchased land in Alpine Haven knowing that their lots were served by a private road network. They clearly receive an ongoing benefit from AHPOA’s road maintenance. Plaintiffs complain that there is no written AHPOA board policy on this point, but they do not explain why a written AHPOA board policy would be needed to reach this conclusion. They also assert generally that there is no evidence of “benefit” as that term is used in Hubbard, 144 Vt. 373, 477 A.2d 972, but they do not specify what that means or what language in Hubbard they rely on. ¶ 39. We held in Hubbard that the defendant lot owners must pay the “pro rata share of costs for the maintenance of a common roadway” based on “the equitable principle that when several persons enjoy a common benefit, all must contribute rateably to the discharge of the burdens incident to the existence of the benefit.” 144 Vt. at 374-75, 477 A.2d at 973 (quotation omitted). We apply that same equitable principle here. Not only are plaintiffs afforded the continuing ability to access their own property, AHPOA also presented evidence to support its contention that the value of their property is enhanced by their continuing right to use the development’s roads. 15 ¶ 40. Even if plaintiffs paid for the inclusion of a deeded right-of-way at the time they purchased their properties, as they assert, their purchase price did not cover the ongoing maintenance costs. Given the benefit they receive, it is equitable, and consistent with 19 V.S.A. § 2702, for plaintiffs to contribute to maintenance of the road network within the development. See In re Goldsmith’s Estate, 25 N.Y.S.2d 419, 424 (Sur. Ct. 1940) (“A ratable contribution normally means a contribution by everybody in accordance with the benefits received.”); see also Restatement (Third) of Prop.: Servitudes § 4.13 cmt. e (2000) (recognizing that “basis of fair apportionment will vary depending on the circumstances”). We note that it would be impossible for AHPOA to know which roads plaintiffs used and to charge them accordingly. Plaintiffs have the right to use all of the roads and it is reasonable and equitable for them to contribute toward their upkeep whether they use them or not. We find no basis to disturb the court’s decision. Affirmed. FOR THE COURT: