Shared driveways are one of those arrangements that only work when both parties operate in good faith, and good faith does not typically include routing daily UPS trucks.

A Vermont homeowner who bought a property with a right-of-way arrangement found himself in a driveway dispute with a neighbor who used the shared access constantly for business deliveries, visitor traffic, and daily pickups while claiming he barely used it at all.

So the homeowner got smart, documented everything, then tried to work out a more fair deal with the neighbor for maintenance costs, but he wouldn’t budge.

His story remains the same, but the homeowner’s security footage says otherwise.

Keep reading for the full story.

Neighbor owns driveway, wants me to pay 100% of maintenance.

I bought a house last year and gained an entitled neighbor.

The neighbor — we’ll call him Rick — and I have been in an ongoing dispute over the driveway.

Here’s the situation: Rick owns the driveway, and I have a legal right-of-way through it to access my property.

Except Rick doesn’t just casually use this driveway.

Rick’s use is much more intensive.

He uses it constantly — for his business.

Deliveries, trucks like UPS and FedEx, visitors, and the USPS mail truck all come up it daily.

So the homeowner had the foresight to start compiling proof.

I’ve literally documented him using it multiple times a day.

I have a Nest cam on the driveway 24/7 because I felt like I was entering some alternate reality where facts were becoming optional.

Now here’s where the entitlement enters the arena — in a Subaru Outback.

The homeowner tries to make a deal with Rick, but he drives a hard bargain.

First, I asked that he pay 50% for plowing.

We’re in a city in Vermont — snow is a real problem.

He claims I’m demanding too much because he uses the driveway so little and I have 2 units on my property.

But the homeowner claims Rick has it all wrong.

I had to buy a duplex because it was going to be sold out from under us.

I don’t make any income from my tenants — they’re my friends, and one of them is battling cancer.

I’m not a slumlord.

Rick continues to give him a lowball offer.

However, Rick owns 4 properties — a condo, a private pond cabin, his house, and his personal little man-child cave next to my place.

He counter-offered “a fair 15%.”

I said no.

He also continues to be a horrible and inconsiderate neighbor.

He’s got deliveries and pickups for his kid, and his one and only friend comes over to sing horribly at 9:30 at night.

He reached out again to ask if I accepted his offer.

I didn’t respond.

Rick then goes back on his already bad deal just to make it even worse.

He then decided that since I didn’t respond to his 15% offer a second time, I should be responsible for 100% of the maintenance.

Not 50/50. Not proportional to actual use. Not just plowing.

This neighbor seems to have a massive chip on his shoulder.

The wildest part is the entitled confidence — not a discussion, not a negotiation, just bypassing my point that he gets delivery trucks, with this energy of “I have decided reality works this way now.”

Has anyone else had a neighbor operate with this level of “the rules are for everyone except me” energy?

Never Miss a Story

Sign up to get our BEST stories of the week straight to your inbox.

Something needs to be done about this situation – and fast.

If you enjoyed this post, check out this story about a landlord who learned the hard way not to try to keep a security deposit he should have paid.

What did Reddit have to say?

It’s clear to this user that these two neighbors are never going to be able to work this out on their own.

This commenter knows someone who went through a very similar situation.

This situation definitely needs to escalate if this homeowner wants to get anything accomplished.

This redditor tries to consider the nuances of the situation.

The most revealing part of this whole situation isn’t the percentages, it’s the logic behind them.

A neighbor who routes daily delivery trucks through a shared driveway and still describes himself as a minimal user isn’t confused about the facts. He just assumed nobody was paying close enough attention to challenge them.

This neighbor built his entire position on the belief that confidence could substitute for accuracy — and that a non-response was the same as a concession.

Neither of those things held up.

This neighbor wants to win on pure stubbornness, but this homeowner can’t let that happen.