Background
Mary and William Skotta own and operate a commercial poultry farm reached by Persimmon Tree Lane, a private, unpaved farm lane crossing property owned by Arthur Mears. The Skottas’ deed grants ingress and egress rights over the lane, but no written agreement allocated responsibility for its maintenance. Both sides use the lane, although the Skottas acknowledged that traffic associated with their poultry operation accounts for approximately 65% to 75% of its use and resulting wear.
After purchasing the farm in 2003, the Skottas continued its poultry operation. In 2018, they decommissioned two older houses and built three larger replacements, increasing the number of operating poultry houses from four to seven. Annual poultry production increased from 75,600 chickens—derived from the former four houses’ combined capacity—to approximately 160,000, generating additional deliveries and heavy-truck traffic. Disputes over access and road maintenance intensified beginning around 2023, and the Skottas filed this action after Mears installed gate posts beside the lane in 2024, although he did not close or lock a gate across it.
Following trial, the only remaining issue was how to divide the costs of maintaining and restoring the lane. The parties disputed whether the road needed merely routine maintenance or more extensive restorative work, and Mears also sought attorneys’ fees based on alleged litigation misconduct.
The Court’s Holding
The court concluded that, absent an agreement, parties jointly entitled to use an easement must bear reasonable maintenance costs in proportion to their use. Applying that equitable principle and guidance from the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes, the court found that the Skottas’ frequent, heavy commercial traffic imposed a materially greater burden than the residential and agricultural traffic attributable to Mears. It therefore allocated 75% of reasonable third-party maintenance costs to the Skottas and 25% to Mears.
The court also found that the lane required restoration to good working order, including reestablishing an adequate crown and adding aggregate material as reasonably necessary. It characterized that work as restoration, not an improvement, and applied the same 75/25 allocation. Because Mears owns the lane and historically oversaw its condition, he must arrange restoration and future maintenance through an independent third-party contractor unless the parties agree otherwise in writing. Work solely enhancing the lane beyond what is reasonably necessary must be paid for by Mears unless the parties agree otherwise.
The court declined to shift attorneys’ fees because the record did not clearly establish bad faith by the Skottas. The parties must confer on a restoration timeline and report back within 60 days. The allocation may be adjusted if their respective levels of use materially change.
Key Takeaways
- When no agreement governs a shared easement, Delaware equity allocates reasonable maintenance obligations in proportion to the parties’ respective use.
- The poultry operation’s predominant use and heavy commercial traffic justified assigning its owners 75% of both restoration and future maintenance costs.
- Necessary grading, crown restoration, and aggregate placement were restorative work rather than optional improvements, while fee shifting was unwarranted without clear evidence of bad faith.
Why It Matters
The decision provides practical guidance for allocating road costs between dominant- and servient-estate owners when an easement instrument does not address maintenance. The analysis considers not only the number of trips but also traffic weight and intensity, prior contributions, and the work needed to keep the easement reasonably usable.
The ruling also distinguishes necessary restoration from improvements and establishes procedural safeguards for shared expenses: an independent contractor, advance notice when reasonable, estimates when practicable, and documentation of actual third-party costs.