Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 228
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 228.369 (2026)

Maintenance, multiple user roads without written agreement, plan of maintenance by court

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  228.369.  Maintenance, multiple user roads without written agreement, plan of maintenance by court — apportionment of costs. — 1.  For any private road subject to the use of more than one homeowner, in the absence of a prior order or written agreement for the maintenance of the private road, including covenants contained in deeds or state or local permits providing for the maintenance of a private road, when adjoining homeowners who are benefitted by the use of an abutting private road, or homeowners who have an easement to use a private road, collectively owners or benefitted owners are unable to agree in writing upon a plan of maintenance for the maintenance, repair, or improvement of the private road and including the assessment and apportionment of costs for the plan of maintenance, one or more of the owners may petition the circuit court for an order establishing a plan of maintenance.

  2.  The cost of a plan of maintenance for a private road shall be apportioned among the owners of residences abutting the private road and holders of easements to use the private road, with the cost apportioned commensurate with the use and benefit to residences benefitted by the access, as mutually agreed by the benefitted homeowners or as ordered by the court with such method of apportionment as agreed by the homeowners or ordered by the court, including, but not limited to, equal division, or proportionate to the residential assessed value, or to front footage, or to usage or benefit.

  3.  The court may implement the same procedures to order and subsequently determine a plan of maintenance for a private road as provided in this chapter for establishing or widening a private road, including the appointment and compensation of disinterested commissioners to determine the plan and the apportionment of costs.

  4.  Where the homeowners who are benefitted by the private road are not able to agree upon the designation of a supervisor to complete the plan of maintenance, the commissioners appointed by the court shall designate a supervisor who shall be compensated for his or her services in the same manner as the commissioners.

  5.  Any agreement executed by all the homeowners, or final order approving, a plan of maintenance for a private road shall be recorded with the county recorder of deeds.

  6.  One or more adjoining homeowners or holders of any easement to use a private road may bring an action to enforce the plan of maintenance for a private road, whether as mutually agreed or as ordered by the court.

­­--------

(L. 2012 H.B. 1103)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2018–2019 · leading case: Stoesz v. Wright, 541 S.W.3d 718 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stoesz v. Wright, 541 S.W.3d 718 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “342 nor Section 228.369 applies to Appellants' claims because Appellants are not attempting to widen Mustang Lane or establish a maintenance plan and because Appellants' interest in maintaining and preserving the quality of the access easement is sufficient to confer standing.”
Gregory J. Evers v. Christopher Choate, No. ED107523 (Mo. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2019). · cites it 14× “In Point One, the Choates contend that the trial court erred in appointing the abutting property owners as trustees of the Rim Road Association because they are not disinterested commissioners as required under Section 228.369. In Point Two, the Choates argue that the trial…”
Stieren v. Grothaus, 559 S.W.3d 70 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 9× “Appellants argue that the trial court failed to follow Section 228.369, RSMo. (Supp. 2012) when establishing the plan of maintenance and that the trial court's judgment is unsupported by substantial evidence and against the weight of the evidence.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.