105.175
Easement to be kept in repair; sharing costs; agreements. (1) The holders of an interest in
any easement shall maintain the easement in repair.
(2) The cost of
maintaining the easement in repair shall be shared by each holder of an
interest in the easement, pursuant to the terms of any agreement entered into
by the parties for that purpose or any recorded instrument creating the
easement. Any such agreement, or a memorandum thereof, shall be recorded in the
real property records of the county in which the easement is located. Failure
to record the agreement shall not affect the enforceability of the agreement
among the parties to the agreement and any other person with actual notice of
the agreement.
(3) The cost of
maintaining the easement in repair in the absence of an agreement and in the
absence of maintenance provisions in a recorded instrument creating the
easement shall be shared by each holder of an interest in the easement in
proportion to the use made of the easement by each holder of an interest in the
easement.
(4) Unless
inconsistent with an agreement between the holders of an interest in an
easement or a recorded instrument creating the easement, in determining
proportionate use and settling conflicts the following guidelines apply:
(a) The frequency
of use and the size and weight of vehicles used by the respective parties are
relevant factors.
(b) Unless
inappropriate, based on the factors contained in paragraph (a) of this
subsection or other relevant factors, costs for normal and usual maintenance of
the easement and costs of repair of the easement damaged by natural disasters
or other events for which all holders of an interest in the easement are
blameless may be shared on the basis of percentages resulting from dividing the
distance of total normal usage of all holders of an interest in the easement
into the normal usage distance of each holder of an interest in the easement.
(c) Those holders
of an interest in the easement that are responsible for damage to the easement
because of negligence or abnormal use shall repair the damage at their sole
expense. [1989 c.660 §§2,3,4; 1991 c.49 §2]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2021 · leading case:
Montagne v. Elliott, 92 P.3d 731 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
Montagne v. Elliott, 92 P.3d 731 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 8× “As to the Weisels’ counterclaim, the court found that appellant was not aware of the road maintenance agreement when he acquired the Coleman property but that the Weisels nonetheless were entitled to recover a portion of their road maintenance costs from appellant under *648 ORS…”
Lemargie v. Johnson, 157 P.3d 1284 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 8× “Plaintiffs appeal a supplemental general judgment denying their claim for attorney fees as the prevailing party on defendant’s counterclaim for maintenance of an easement, pursuant to ORS 105.175 and ORS 105.180. Plaintiffs argue that, under ORS 105.”
Guild v. Baune, 115 P.3d 249 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 5× “Pfau admitted in his answer that the parties had been unable to agree on the level of maintenance and repair of the easement and the proportionate share of the costs but asserted that he had “attempted to fully cooperate with” plaintiffs and was “willing to pay his proportionate…”
Tipperman v. Tsiatsos, 964 P.2d 1015 (Or. 1998).
· cites it 2× “The Court of *544 Appeals further concluded, citing ORS 105.175, 2 that defendant, not plaintiff, should bear the cost of maintaining—but not constructing—the second corridor fence, as well as the first corridor fence.”
Moir v. Ozeruga, 496 P.3d 655 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 2× “It determined that, under ORS 105.175(1), “plaintiffs breached their statutory duty to maintain the easement in repair,” and it maintained its order to plaintiffs to repave the easement.”
Gildow v. Smith, 957 P.2d 199 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint for “Trespass — Unauthorized Entry onto Land and for Failure to Comply with ORS 105.175,” 1 acknowledging the existence of defendants’ easement but requesting an injunction requiring defendants to maintain the road pursuant to the…”
Watson v. Banducci, 973 P.2d 395 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“See ORS 105.175. Thus, where, as here, neighbors agree to grant an easement for only minimal consideration (e.”
Tipperman v. Tsiatsos, 915 P.2d 446 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “As relevant, ORS 105.175 provides: “(1) The holders of an interest in any easement shall maintain the easement in repair.”
Beebe v. DeMarco, 968 P.2d 396 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
“The judgment here specifically allows plaintiff to do certain acts — grading and leveling, for example — that are consistent with plaintiffs use of the easement and her obligation to repair it. Although it is possible that the judgment could be interpreted to permit paving, see…”
Guild v. Baune, 119 P.3d 281 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“Based on plaintiffs’ pleadings, 1 we adhere to our original opinion, holding that this action was brought in order to obtain a declaration defining the rights and liabilities of the parties under ORS 105.175 in the absence of an agreement.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 105.175(1) — 1 case
Moir v. Ozeruga, 496 P.3d 655 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“It determined that, under ORS 105.175(1), “plaintiffs breached their statutory duty to maintain the easement in repair,” and it maintained its order to plaintiffs to repave the easement.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 105.175(2) — 2 cases
Montagne v. Elliott, 92 P.3d 731 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
“As to the Weisels’ counterclaim, the court found that appellant was not aware of the road maintenance agreement when he acquired the Coleman property but that the Weisels nonetheless were entitled to recover a portion of their road maintenance costs from appellant under *648 ORS…”
Lemargie v. Johnson, 157 P.3d 1284 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
“Plaintiffs appeal a supplemental general judgment denying their claim for attorney fees as the prevailing party on defendant’s counterclaim for maintenance of an easement, pursuant to ORS 105.175 and ORS 105.180. Plaintiffs argue that, under ORS 105.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 105.175(3) — 2 cases
Montagne v. Elliott, 92 P.3d 731 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
“As to the Weisels’ counterclaim, the court found that appellant was not aware of the road maintenance agreement when he acquired the Coleman property but that the Weisels nonetheless were entitled to recover a portion of their road maintenance costs from appellant under *648 ORS…”
Guild v. Baune, 115 P.3d 249 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“Pfau admitted in his answer that the parties had been unable to agree on the level of maintenance and repair of the easement and the proportionate share of the costs but asserted that he had “attempted to fully cooperate with” plaintiffs and was “willing to pay his proportionate…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 105.175(4)(c) — 1 case
Moir v. Ozeruga, 496 P.3d 655 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“It determined that, under ORS 105.175(1), “plaintiffs breached their statutory duty to maintain the easement in repair,” and it maintained its order to plaintiffs to repave the easement.”
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.