Short answer. Yes. Where several dominant estates share an easement, Article 628 obliges each owner to contribute to the cost of the works in proportion to the benefit received. But any owner who does not wish to contribute may exempt himself by renouncing the easement for the benefit of the others. Renunciation is the price of escaping the upkeep.
What the law says
Any one who does not wish to contribute may exempt himself by renouncing the easement for the benefit of the others.
Civil Code, Article 628 — Several Dominant Estates Share Costs. Read the full provision →
Shared easements bring shared costs
When more than one property benefits from the same easement, keeping that easement in working order costs money, and the law spreads the cost among those who gain from it. Article 628 requires the owners of the several dominant estates to contribute to the expenses of the necessary works in proportion to the benefit each derives. The owner who gets more use of the easement bears more of the cost. This proportional sharing keeps any one beneficiary from carrying the whole burden of works that serve them all.
The escape hatch: renounce the easement
An owner who would rather not pay is given a clear way out. The article provides that any one who does not wish to contribute may exempt himself by renouncing the easement for the benefit of the others. By giving up his own right to use the easement, he frees himself from the duty to pay for its upkeep. The renunciation is made in favour of the remaining dominant owners, who continue to enjoy and maintain the easement. The trade is simple: keep the benefit and share the cost, or drop the benefit and owe nothing.
The servient owner may also share
The obligation to contribute is not limited to the dominant estates. If the owner of the servient estate, the land burdened by the easement, also makes use of the easement in any manner, he too must contribute to the expenses in the same proportion, unless there is an agreement to the contrary. So a servient owner who takes advantage of the works cannot enjoy them for free while the dominant owners pay. Use of the easement, from whichever side, carries a corresponding share of its maintenance cost.
Weighing the trade-off
The decision under Article 628 comes down to whether the easement is worth its share of the upkeep. An owner who rarely relies on it may find renunciation the sensible choice, shedding both the right and the cost. One who depends on the easement will keep it and pay his proportional share. The practical caution is that renunciation means genuinely giving up the right for the benefit of the others; it is a real surrender, not a temporary excuse from a single bill, so it should be weighed against the long-term value of the easement.