Summary of the Facts

The dispute involves Mr. Payne and the Westglen Village Condominium Association. It began after a new management company changed homeowner assessments from a flat rate to a system based on unit square footage, which increased Mr. Payne's fees. Following this, Mr. Payne requested three years of financial records, claiming the documents provided were incomplete, and also requested an independent audit, which the Association argued was not required. Mr. Payne also raised concerns about the adoption of the 2025 budget, alleged that the Association was neglecting maintenance of common areas, and questioned the authority for several rules and fees, including a resale fee and a towing policy. The Association contended it had provided all records it possesses, was not required to produce a new annual budget, and was actively working to secure funds for maintenance.

Summary of the Conclusions

The Office of the Homeowners' Association Ombudsman concluded that the Association acted correctly in changing the fee calculation to a percentage-based system and was not required to hold a formal meeting to do so. The Office also found the Association fulfilled its legal obligation by providing all available financial reports in its possession and met its obligation to maintain common areas by working to secure funding and determine the priority of repairs. However, the Office determined the Association was not in compliance with its own governing documents—and therefore Utah law—due to its failure to conduct an annual audit and its failure to provide an annual budget to homeowners, as both actions are required by the Association's CC&Rs. Lastly, the Office stated it lacks jurisdiction to rule on the validity of the disputed rules and fees because they were adopted in 2005.

Issue Topics: Access to governing documents; Compliance with/enforcement of governing documents; Compliance with/enforcement of rules and regulations; Budget; Fees and assessments; Common areas and amenities

Download the Full Opinion HERE

Summary of the Facts

A dispute arose between Mr. Knight and the Sagewood Village Homeowners' Association concerning the parking of his trailer on his property. The Association's governing documents restrict trailer parking, requiring them to be on a concrete pad behind a six-foot fence. After receiving a notice from the Association on September 8, 2025 , Mr. Knight moved what he describes as a "utility trailer" from his RV pad to his driveway, believing this would comply. The Association maintained that this was still a violation, claiming the vehicle was a "travel trailer" that it could restrict. Mr. Knight disagreed, citing a recent change in state law, Utah Code § 57-8a-218(20)(a), which he argued prevents the Association from restricting an operable vehicle in a driveway.

Summary of the Conclusions

The Office of the Homeowners' Association Ombudsman concluded that the Association's attempts to prohibit Mr. Knight from parking his trailer in his driveway are illegal under both state law and the Association's own CC&Rs. The analysis focused on Utah Code § 57-8a-218(20)(a), which generally bars associations from restricting operable vehicles in driveways. While the law provides exceptions for "commercial vehicles," "motor homes," and "recreational vehicle trailers," the Office determined Mr. Knight's trailer did not meet the legal definition of any of these exceptions. Specifically, it is not self-propelled (a requirement for a motor home) and is not "designed as a temporary dwelling" (a requirement for a recreational vehicle trailer). Because the trailer is an operable vehicle protected by the statute, the Association cannot prohibit its parking by rule. Additionally, the Office found that the Association's own CC&Rs permit "customary parking," which is defined as parking operable vehicles in the driveway.

Issue Topics: Compliance with/enforcement of governing documents; Compliance with/enforcement of rules and regulations

Download the Full Opinion HERE

Summary of the Facts

A dispute arose between Mr. Nord and the Aspen Cove at Scofield Owners Association regarding a $500 Special Reserve Assessment for 2025. This assessment was approved by the Association's members during their 2024 annual meeting as a means to strengthen the reserve fund, rather than increasing annual dues. Mr. Nord challenged the 2025 assessment after the Association President sent an email in June 2025 stating that the reserve fund was "fully funded." The Association contended that this "fully funded" status was temporary and that the assessment was still necessary to cover several planned capital expenditures, including water monitoring, security cameras, and gate access upgrades.

Summary of Conclusions

The Office of the Homeowners' Association Ombudsman concluded that the Association did not violate Utah law by collecting the assessment. The analysis found that the Special Reserve Assessment was properly approved by the Association's members during the 2024 annual meeting, in accordance with the governing documents. Although Mr. Nord pointed to the "fully funded" status of the reserve, the Office noted that Utah law does not set a maximum limit on the amount a reserve fund can hold for known and anticipated expenses. Furthermore, nothing in the law prevents members from proactively approving a special assessment to cover future costs. Because the assessment was validly approved and Mr. Nord's lot is not exempt, he is required to pay it.

Issue Topics: Reserve Fund; Fees and Assessments; Special Assessments

Download the Full Opinion HERE

Summary of the Facts

A dispute arose between Ms. Ratz, a homeowner and Board Trustee, and the SunRiver St. George Community Association Board. The conflict involved multiple issues, including alleged violations of transparency, the validity of specific assessments for the "Reflections" neighborhood, and the process for amending governing documents. A central disagreement occurred when the Association’s Financial Advisory Committee ("FAC") scheduled a closed-door meeting on July 15, 2025, to discuss the budget. Ms. Ratz argued this violated state open meeting laws, while the Board contended that these laws did not apply to the Association or its committees.

Summary of Conclusions

The Office of the Homeowners' Association Ombudsman concluded that the Association did not violate Utah law in several key areas. First, the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act does not apply to community associations. Furthermore, the Association’s own governing documents specifically permitted the FAC to meet in a closed session to review the budget. Second, the Board acted lawfully when it excluded Ms. Ratz from an executive session to discuss her legal demand; state law allows this to protect attorney-client privilege, especially since Ms. Ratz was in a legally adverse position to the Association. The Board's preliminary process for reviewing document amendments was also found to be compliant. Finally, the Office determined it lacked jurisdiction to rule on several of Ms. Ratz's other claims, including the validity of the Reflections Assessment, alleged violations of the business judgment rule, access to records, and harassment.

Summary of the Amendment

After the original opinion was issued, the Office of the Homeowners' Association Ombudsman was provided with information that the resolution creating the FAC had been amended; however, the amended document was not provided to the office. While the amended resolution did not impact the analysis and conclusion of the original opinion, additional factual and background information was added to ensure accuracy.

Issue Topics: Compliance with/enforcement of governing documents; Amendment of governing documents; Records request; Board; Board/Management Committee meetings; Meeting notices; Meeting minutes; Fees and assessments

Download the Full Opinion HERE

Summary of the Facts

This dispute involves homeowner William Malan and the Jeremy Ranch Owners Association regarding a notice of violation issued for a hot tub installed in 1994, which had remained compliant for approximately 30 years. In December 2024, the Association adopted new guidelines that require hot tubs to be shielded from street view. Subsequently, it held, along with several other associations in the area, an event to discuss several options and recommendations to mitigate wildfire risk. After Mr. Malan trimmed his trees in July 2025 to comply with these fire safety recommendations, the Association determined the hot tub was now visible and issued a notice of non-compliance. Mr. Malan asserts that the non-compliance arose solely from his adherence to safety suggestions. At the same time, the Association maintains that the visibility constitutes a "changed circumstance" requiring remediation, although it has offered extended timelines and fee waivers to facilitate a solution.

Legal Questions Presented

• Can an Association Change Its Rules and Enforce Them on Existing Homes?

An HOA can legally amend its rules and apply them to all homeowners, provided it follows Utah law and its governing documents when adopting the new rules. In this case, because the Association adopted the Guidelines in accordance with the requirements of Utah law and its Governing Documents, they are valid and apply to all homeowners within the Association.

• How Does Grandfathering Work When an Association Changes Its Rules?

In Utah, “grandfathering” protects a homeowner from having to remove personal items (such as a hot tub) after a rule change, but it does not prevent the HOA from enforcing new rules that don’t require the disposal of personal property. Because the Association is not requiring Mr. Malan to dispose of the hot tub, it does not qualify for the grandfathering exception under Utah law.

• Who is Responsible for Compliance Costs, Especially After Unintended Violations?

Generally, the homeowner is financially responsible for bringing their property into compliance with the rules, even if the violation was unintentional or occurred as an indirect consequence of following general safety advice from the HOA. In Mr. Malan’s case, the CC&Rs clearly state that he is responsible for any costs incurred in bringing the hot tub into compliance with the Guidelines.

Issue Topics: Compliance with/enforcement of governing documents; Rule Adoption; Fines and Enforcement

Download the Full Opinion HERE

Summary of the Facts

A series of disputes arose between Ms. Ollerton and the Aix La Chapelle Condominium Association regarding allegations of improper rule adoption, lack of financial transparency, and maintenance failures. The Association denied these allegations while asserting that it had acted in good faith. While Ms. Ollerton and her partner, Mr. Wright, contended that issues of mismanagement necessitated the formation of a homeowner organization, the Association alleged that the couple engaged in defamation and nuisance behavior, resulting in the issuance of cease-and-desist letters and the deactivation of their online owner portal. The conflict escalated after the Association recorded an amendment concerning rental restrictions in December 2024 and subsequently adopted a rule in July 2025 that prohibited individuals with felony convictions from serving on the Board. Following the adoption of this rule, the Board disqualified Mr. Wright’s candidacy for a board position due to a prior felony conviction; Mr. Wright challenged this disqualification, arguing that since his record had been expunged, the Board could not rely on it to deny his candidacy. Consequently, Ms. Ollerton submitted a request for an Advisory Opinion to address the validity of the governing document amendments and the disqualification of Mr. Wright.

Legal Questions Presented

• What are the Requirements for an Association to Amend its Declaration to Include Rental Restrictions?

Utah law allows an association to amend its declaration so long as it complies with the procedures outlined in the declaration and other applicable Utah laws. Utah law further allows an association to impose rental restrictions in its declaration, and in some limited circumstances, its rules. In this case, the Amendment imposing the rental restrictions was recorded with Salt Lake County and has an attestation that all requirements, including the voting thresholds, for the Amendment were met. Therefore, the Amendment was duly adopted and recorded, and the Association did not violate Utah law in imposing the rental restrictions.

• Can an Association Prevent a Member Who is a Felon or Sex Offender from Seeking Election to its Board?

Utah law allows an association to prohibit an individual from running for or serving on its board if the individual is a felon or sex offender. In this case, no evidence is presented to support the allegation that the Rule was adopted in violation of Utah law. Accordingly, the Rule is valid and applies to all members of the Association.

• Can an Association Apply a Rule Banning a Felon from Its Board to Someone with an Expunged Record?

Once an individual has completed the expungement process, including receiving the certificate of eligibility, court order, and processing, that individual can respond to inquiries as though the arrest, prosecution, or conviction did not occur. In this matter, while there may have been other lawful reasons for preventing Mr. Wright from running for the Board, the Association cannot base that denial solely on his expunged criminal matters.

Issue Topics: Compliance with/enforcement of governing documents; Amendment of governing documents; Compliance with/enforcement of rules and regulations; Rule adoption; Board

Download the Full Opinion HERE

Summary of the Facts

A dispute arose between homeowner A. Tom Nelson and The Ridge at St. George Townhome Association regarding the Association's budgeting process, assessment calculations, and annual meeting notices. Mr. Nelson alleged that for several years, the Association failed to comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and improperly calculated assessments, resulting in smaller homes subsidizing larger ones. Conversely, the Association denied these allegations and maintained that it correctly completed its budget and assessments in accordance with its governing documents. On November 26, 2024, the Association emailed a notice for the January 11, 2025, annual meeting to all homeowners, which included the agenda and the 2025 Board-approved budget. Mr. Nelson sent a letter to the Board on January 2, 2025, reiterating his concerns about the budget's compliance with state law and acknowledging the upcoming meeting. The annual meeting took place on January 11, 2025, and the Association subsequently sent Mr. Nelson a copy of the budget via U.S. Postal Service on January 25, 2025. After the parties remained unable to resolve the disagreement, Mr. Nelson submitted a Request for an Advisory Opinion to the Office of the Homeowners' Association Ombudsman on October 18, 2025.

Legal Questions Presented

• What are the Requirements for an Association When Adopting and Approving a Budget?

Utah law does not require condominium associations to prepare and adopt an annual budget, nor does it impose any specific requirements or standards related to the budgeting process, other than what may be included in an association’s governing documents. In this matter, the Office lacks jurisdiction to opine on the particular claims made by Mr. Nelson as they were known more than one year before he submitted the Request.

• How is an Association Required to Calculate Assessments?

Utah law requires an association to assess each unit owner for common expenses based on their ownership interest, as more fully detailed and outlined in the association’s governing documents. In this case, the Office lacks jurisdiction to opine on the particular claims made by Mr. Nelson as they were known more than one year before he submitted the Request.

• What Notice is Required from an Association Before an Annual Meeting?

Utah law allows an association to provide notice of an annual meeting to members in various ways so long as it is fair and reasonable when all the circumstances surrounding the notice are considered. Additionally, an association must generally comply with any notice requirements contained in its governing documents. In this case, since Mr. Nelson had actually received notice of the meeting and had never demanded that he be provided with notice only via mail, the notice of the annual meeting sent to Mr. Nelson via email was fair and reasonable, considering all the circumstances. Additionally, Mr. Nelson waived his right to object to any deficiencies in the notice process by attending the meeting and failing to raise his objections at that time.

Issue Topics: Compliance with/enforcement of governing documents; Meeting notices; Budget; Fees and assessments

Download the Full Opinion HERE