At the recent MARA Annual Forum, I remember a reference to a ruling by a judge who found it permissible for a road association to increase annual fees for owners who rented their properties commercially. The judge concurred that this placed an additional burden on the road and its users. Is anyone able to provide me with the reference? I would like to review the case as we have a similar situation in our neighborhood.

Cliff Goodall's reply to Andrew Allen's post:

PROPOSED POST AT #5049497, MARA DISCUSSION FORUM

Your summary of the part of the discussion at the MARA conference concerning road association fee formulas, which I presented, is not accurate. The discussion at the conference had a fast pace, so I am pleased you raised the confusion so we could address it. Thanks.

23 MRSA Section 3101 (5) requires that “each owner’s share of the total cost must be fair and equitable and based upon a formula”

I explained that this results in the opportunity for a RA to have groups or classifications that are assessed different amounts but they must assess all owners similarly situated the same. It must be rationally based on intensity of use and impacts on the road and be proportional to that impact and related costs.  I gave a variety of examples. Someone in the audience asked if there could be a different assessment for renters. I said yes if there was a rational basis. Someone then said that renters have no ownership interest and are therefore likely to abuse the road. I replied that if it went to court, a judge would have to consider the formula based on the above.

I never said that that issue or any other formula issue has been litigated. To my knowledge they have not and there is no case law directly on point. However, there is a lot of case law on “fair and equitable” groupings, formulas. classifications, etc.  The equal protection clause of the constitution is the most obvious example plus there are statutory rules of construction.

A word of caution: I did not raise the issue of renters v owners. In some circumstances, a different classification may be justified and have a rational basis based on real evidence and experience and there may be a difference between transient renters and long-term renters. However, in some circumstances a different grouping of renters from owners could be abused and be based on an anti-rental prejudice and not on real road impacts. I can understand a separate classification for transient (very short term) rental units or cabins IF it is proportional and not punitive. Everything hinges on the facts of each separate case when subjected to the test set forth above.

I hope this clarifies the discussion.

(Written by Clifford Goodall)