Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That Multiple Dominant Estate Holders Sharing Use of a Common Easement Must Equitably Contribute to the Costs Necessary to Maintain and Repair the Easement.

Plaintiffs brought an action for contribution and unjust enrichment against Defendant who, like the Plaintiffs, relied upon a shared easement as the sole means of access to his residence.  Following a bench trial, the trial court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claims for unjust enrichment and contribution.  Plaintiffs appealed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim but vacated the dismissal of the contribution claim and remanded for further proceedings.  Answering a question of first impression in Arizona, the Court of Appeals held that, even without a cost-sharing agreement or requirement in the terms of the easement, the holders of a shared easement are entitled to equitable contribution from one another for repair and maintenance of the easement.  See Restatement (Third) of Property § 4.13 (recognizing a duty of contribution unless the terms of the easement provide otherwise).

The parties are not necessarily required to share the costs equally.  Rather, the court should equitably apportion the expenses after considering all relevant factors, including each party’s proportionate use of and benefits received from the easement, each party’s notice and opportunity to participate in the decision regarding maintenance and repairs, whether the work was reasonable and necessary, whether the work was performed adequately and for a reasonable price, and the value of each party’s monetary and in-kind contributions.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim.  A claim for unjust enrichment requires (1) an enrichment, (2) an impoverishment, (3) a connection between the enrichment and impoverishment, (4) the absence of justification for the enrichment and impoverishment, and (5) the absence of a remedy provided by law.  The trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the roadwork was done to their detriment and for the Defendant’s benefit.

Judge Winthrop authored the opinion; Judges Norris and Irvine concurred.