Alfano Law Office, PLLC

Alfano Law Office, PLLC
Phone: (603) 856-8411 • Fax (603) 290-5521
4 Park Street, Concord, NH 03301
  • Home
  • Real Estate Law
    • Road Law
    • Commercial Real Estate Law
    • Tax Abatements
    • Business Law
  • Estate Planning
  • About Us
    • Paul J. Alfano, Real Estate Attorney
    • John F. Hayes, Attorney
    • Terrie Harman, Attorney
    • Jim Soucy, Attorney
    • Marissa Schuetz, Attorney
    • Michael D. Cameron, Attorney
    • Privacy Policy
  • Articles
  • Contact Us
    • Directions
  • Road Law Guide
  • NH Tax Abatement
    • Tax Abatement Team
    • Grounds for Abatement
    • Municipal Application
    • Owners of Properties Outside New Hampshire
    • Transfer Tax Allocation
    • Recent Laws and Rulings
  • Resources and Links
    • Allobar Strategies
    • Calendar and Key Dates
    • Equalization Ratio
    • NAPTA
  • Covid-19 Updates
You are here: Home / New Hampshire Property Tax Alerts / June 2015 NH Property Tax Alert – Assessment vs. Appraisal; Intangibles; Private Road Maintenance

June 2015 NH Property Tax Alert – Assessment vs. Appraisal; Intangibles; Private Road Maintenance

“Assessment” versus “appraisal.”  A tax is assessed by selectmen or assessors in accordance with their appraisal of the property.  Appraisal determines value; assessment determines the amount of the tax.

Intangibles.  Only a taxable interest in real estate may be used in valuing real estate.  A license to use certain common amenities in a mobile park is not, for example, a taxable interest in real estate.  LSP Association v. Gilford, 142 N.H. 369 (1997).

Also of note….

Who is obligated to contribute toward the maintenance of a private road?  The New Hampshire Supreme Court recently addressed this thorny issue by ruling that parties who enjoy the benefit of a private road may be required to contribute  toward the road’s maintenance, even in the absence of covenants imposing that obligations.   Village Green Condominium Association v. Hodges (March 20, 2015) involved an access easement benefitting three apartment complexes that ran through land owned by a condominium association.  The condominium had the right to use the easement area in common with the owner of the apartment land, and the easement gave the owner of the apartment land the right, but not the obligation, to improve and maintain the easement area.  After several decades of apparently peaceful co-existence, the road required significant repair, and the condominium association sought contribution from the owner of the apartment land.  In holding that the owner of the apartment land was required to contribute toward the maintenance and repair of the easement, the court based its ruling “upon the principle that, by using the easement, both the dominant and servient estates contribute to its wear and deterioration and, therefore, distribution of the burden of easement maintenance and repair between both estates is equitable and just.”  The decision does not, however, address the nature and extent of the apartment owner’s contribution, as the parties settled that issue by agreement.

In Choquette & a. v. Roy, et. al. (April 3, 2015), one of the central issues to the case was whether an easement user had the right and obligation to maintain a right of way over his neighbor’s property. In this case, a landowner owned a plot of some 400 acres, which he subdivided into several lots over two decades. One of the subdivided lots, a 103-acre parcel, accessed a public road using two deeded easements, one of which stretched exclusively over a neighboring lot. The easement deeds benefitting the 103-acre parcel provided for access over the right of way, and was silent on maintenance obligations. The owner of the neighboring lot filed a petition for declaratory relief prohibiting the easement user from maintaining and repairing the right of way across his property, among other causes of action.

The Supreme Court affirmed at the time of conveyance of the 103-acre lot, the parties intended to permit the easement user access over the right of way at issue, and concluded a reasonable person would have concluded the easement was “permanent and obvious” and “reasonably necessary for the fair enjoyment of the [103-acre parcel].”  Because the easement user had a right to increase the burden on the easement, the court held, in absence of an agreement to the contrary, the easement user had the common law right and duty to maintain the easement, and that right existed whether or not the other easement users also performed maintenance

 

 

Filed Under: New Hampshire Property Tax Alerts, Property Tax Law, Real Estate Law, Road Law

The above information is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Important Registry Updates
Important Court Updates

Subscribe to the Alfano Law Property Rights Alert

Sign Up Now

For Email Newsletters you can trust.
Allobar Strategies

NH Tax Abatement

  • Road Law Guide
  • NH Tax Abatement
    • Tax Abatement Team
    • Grounds for Abatement
    • Municipal Application
    • Owners of Properties Outside New Hampshire
    • Transfer Tax Allocation
    • Recent Laws and Rulings
  • Resources and Links
    • Allobar Strategies
    • Calendar and Key Dates
    • Equalization Ratio
    • NAPTA
  • Covid-19 Updates

NH Real Estate Law Articles

  • Court Updates
  • Covid-19
  • Estate Planning
  • General
  • Legislation
  • New Hampshire Property Tax Alerts
  • Property Investments
  • Property Tax Law
  • Real Estate Law
  • Road Law
  • Taxes

Recent News Letters

March 2020

December 2019

November 2019

October 2019

August 2019

July 2019

May 2019

Recent Articles

Obtaining Approvals to Build on Class VI and Private Roads in New Hampshire

RSA 674:41 generally prevents New Hampshire … [Read More...]

City Liable for Trespass by not Removing Sewer Line after Landowner Revoked License

When neighboring landowners are friendly with one … [Read More...]

NH Supreme Court Holds that Tenants’ Right of First Offer to Purchase Rented Property can be Triggered by the Owners’ Intent to Sell.

It is common for residential leases to include options … [Read More...]

March 1 is the Deadline to Request a Refund of New Hampshire Property Taxes

March 1, 2021 is the deadline to challenge your 2020 real … [Read More...]

Article Archives

  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • October 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • June 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • June 2013
  • February 2012
  • December 2011
  • May 2011
  • July 2010
  • December 2005
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

Alfano Law Office, PLLC, 4 Park Street, Concord, NH 03301 USA | Phone: (603) 856-8411
Copyright © 2021 · Alfano Law Office, PLLC. All Rights Reserved · Website design by InterActive Synergy, LLC