however, if she had used the term "expense" in the conversation. Also, Mr. Freeman further testified that later in 2002, when the Freemans chose to begin work on the road, Sorchych indicated he would not contribute to maintenance because he preferred that the road be in a more "rustic” condition. Thus, a reasonable interpretation of the Freemans’ testimony, as ostensibly found by the court and supported by the record, was that Sorchych had not agreed to contribute monetarily to maintenance or repair of the road, but that he initially offered to assist in maintaining the road, and he rescinded that offer in 2002, before the Freemans had substantially relied on any alleged agreement. Moreover, consistent with the court's e v. Ford, 155 N.J.Super. 571, 383 A.2d 133, 134-35 (1978) (<HOLDING>); Ingling v. Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 10
holding that repair and maintenance costs for common roads and other common areas were the responsibility of the residential users and not the homeowners association that held title to the roads holding that the duty to maintain an easement was upon those entitled to its use rather than upon the servient estate holding that all property owners affected by a residential use permit are necessary parties recognizing that where a grantee has an easement which he shares with others his duty to repair and maintain it must be apportioned with all other easement holders based upon the extent of the individuals use of the easement holding that individual property owners holding an express easement to use roads in a privately developed residential area rather than the voluntary nonprofit association organized to raise funds to maintain the roads were obligated to contribute to the repair and maintenance of those roads