Issued Advisory Opinions
Issued Advisory Opinions
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
Summary of the Facts
A dispute arose between homeowners, the Tanners, and the Layton Parke Estates Homeowners Association regarding the Tanners' chicken coop and hens. The Tanners built the 81-square-foot coop after receiving permits from Layton City. After a neighbor complained, the Association issued violation notices, first citing a rule against "temporary structures". When the Tanners' legal counsel challenged this interpretation, the Association paused enforcement and contacted the developer, who was still in the period of administrative control. On September 15, 2025, the Declarant recorded amended CC&Rs that explicitly banned all poultry and chicken coops. The Association then issued new violation notices based on this updated document.
Summary of the Conclusions
The Office of the Homeowners' Association Ombudsman concluded that the Association did not violate Utah law and can require the removal of the Tanners' coop and hens. The analysis found that the Declarant's amendment to the CC&Rs was valid. This is because the Declarant was still within the "period of administrative control," and the original governing documents gave them the unilateral right to make such amendments. Furthermore, the Office found no legal requirement for the Tanners' pre-existing coop and hens to be "grandfathered in". While some state laws protect non-conforming uses from new rules, those laws do not apply to amendments to the CC&Rs. Finally, obtaining permits from Layton City does not override the more restrictive, binding contractual obligations of the Association's CC&Rs.
Issue Topics: Compliance with/enforcement of governing documents; Amendment of governing documents; Declarant/Developer; Pets/animals
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Summary of the Facts
A dispute arose between Monnie Elliott and the Padre Lakes Townhomes Association regarding the voting requirements for an upcoming annual meeting and Board election
Legal Questions Presented
- What are the Voting Requirements for an Association?
Under Utah law, community associations are required to conduct board elections in compliance with the specific procedures outlined in their governing documents, defaulting to a vote at the annual meeting only if the bylaws are silent. In this case, because the Bylaws state that elections “may” be handled by mail, language defined as permissive rather than mandatory, the Association acted within its authority by declining to use mail ballots and instead holding the election at the annual meeting.
Issue Topics: Compliance with/enforcement of governing documents; Board
Summary of the Facts
This dispute involved Daniel Burleigh and the Cooper's Hollow Home Owners Association regarding a basement renovation within Mr. Burleigh's townhome
Legal Questions Presented
- Does an Association's Failure to Act in One Case Mean that it has Waived its Ability to Act in Another?
Utah law allows an association to adopt and enforce usage restrictions in its governing documents and gives an association some discretion as to when and how to enforce those restrictions. In this case, the Association’s alleged previous failure to enforce these restrictions in one situation does not mean that it has waived its right to enforce them later.
- What Restrictions Can an Association Place on Improvements and Construction Within an Owner's Home, and Can a Homeowner Rely on a Design Approval Received From an Association?
Under Utah law, an association may generally regulate lot use and review improvement plans. However, specific statutes prohibit an association from (a) banning IADUs from detached single-family homes, (b) preventing reliance on previously approved completed applications, or (c) restricting a dwelling’s interior use unless there is a safety necessity. Although Mr. Burleigh’s incomplete application precludes him from using statutory protections to rely on the ACC approval, and although his attached townhome does not qualify for statutory IADU protections, the Association ultimately cannot enforce its CC&R limits on bedrooms and kitchens because the restriction violates the statutory ban on regulating interiors without a safety purpose, and all fines associated with that enforcement are invalid.
Issue Topics: Compliance with/enforcement of governing documents; Compliance with/enforcement rules and regulations; Fines and enforcement; Design/architectural control
Summary of the Facts
Nathan Andelin, a homeowner and landlord in Santorini Village, initiated a dispute with the Santorini Village Owners Association, Inc. regarding various administrative and financial actions taken by the Board. The Association provided notice of its approved 2025 budget in December 2024; however, Mr. Andelin contended that the process failed to comply with state law by denying homeowners the opportunity to discuss or vote on the budget's disapproval. In April 2025, the Board adopted a resolution and disclosure requirements that established an escalating fine schedule, a rental administration fee, and mandated that landlords provide copies of executed lease agreements and tenant contact information. Mr. Andelin argued these measures and their adoption process violated Utah law, while the Association asserted it acted within its authority and properly enforced all relevant rules. Additionally, a conflict arose over access to records when Mr. Andelin submitted multiple document requests in early 2025. Although the Association provided several documents in May 2025, including bank statements, Mr. Andelin maintained that the response was incomplete, as it failed to deliver financial data to his preferred CSV format or include specific management company contracts. Conversely, the Association argued it satisfied its legal obligations by providing the statutorily required documents and that Mr. Andelin was not entitled to the additional records or specific formats he requested.
Legal Questions Presented
- What are the Requirements for an Association When Adopting Fines and Fees?
Under Utah Code § 57-8a, an association may legally assess fees and fines by rule provided it issues 15 days’ notice of the rule-making meeting, affords homeowners a reasonable opportunity for comment, and distributes the finalized fee schedule to all owners within 15 days of adoption. In this matter, the Association satisfied these requirements by providing a timely email notice, allowing for homeowner input during the April meeting, and ensuring the adopted Resolution was immediately accessible to all members through an online portal.
- What Records is an Association Required to Maintain and Produce to Homeowners, and What are the Requirements for an Association When Adopting a Budget?
Under Utah law, community associations are required to maintain and provide access to specific records upon a member's good-faith request and must follow established procedures for adopting annual budgets, which members retain a limited right to disapprove. Applying these statutes, the Office determined that the Association complied with Utah law by providing sufficient financial statements, even though they were not in the specific CSV format requested by Mr. Andelin and did not include all other documents requested by Mr. Andelin. Additionally, the Association adhered to the proper timeline and notification requirements for the adoption of the 2025 budget.
- Can an Association Require, Through a Rule, a Homeowner to Provide a Copy of an Executed Lease Agreement and to Pay a Rental Administration Fee?
Under Utah law, community associations may adopt rules and administrative fees for rental properties, provided they comply with statutory notice requirements and limit information requests to non-prohibited items, such as signed lease agreements and tenant contact information, rather than sensitive data, including credit reports or background checks. In the present matter, many of the allegations and challenges brought by Mr. Andelin are time-barred by the one-year jurisdictional limit under Utah Code § 13-79-104(2)(a)(iii). However, on the matters for which the Office does have jurisdiction, the Association acted within its authority because the requested information is legally permissible. Finally, no information has been provided to the Office demonstrating that the Association failed to comply with Utah law regarding the notice requirements for the rental administrative fee. Even if it had, no evidence has been provided that Mr. Andelin formally contested the rental fee via a written waiver request. Accordingly, the Association has not violated Utah law with respect to the Resolution and Tenant Disclosures.
Summary of the Facts
A dispute arose between Lynn Kenneth Packer and the Hill Farms Subdivision Homeowner Association regarding the governance, maintenance, and administrative transition of the community. Mr. Packer contended that the third declarant improperly delayed the turnover of control to homeowners, arguing that the transfer should have legally occurred in 2021 rather than 2024. He further asserted that the subsequent board election was invalid, that common area landscaping was neglected due to deficient enforcement, and that his requests to inspect association records were unlawfully denied. Conversely, the association maintained that the transition of administrative control in July 2024 was valid and consistent with its governing documents. The association also stated that its board exercised proper discretion regarding enforcement and maintenance and that certain records requested by Mr. Packer were withheld in accordance with statutory limitations regarding member inspection rights. The timeline of events included various transfers of declarant rights, a board meeting and election held in July 2024 to transfer control to homeowners, and a series of record requests and responses occurring between May 2019 and March 2025.
Legal Questions Presented
- When Does the Period of Administrative Control End Within an Association?
Under Utah law, the period of administrative control in a community association generally terminates once a specific percentage of lots are sold, though this timeframe is strictly capped by statutory limits regarding the declarant's retained rights or cessation of business activity. Applying this to Mr. Packer’s case, the Office lacks jurisdiction to review the matter because the period of administrative control undisputedly concluded more than a year before he submitted his request.
- Do Association Members Retain Enforceable Voting Rights During the Period of Administrative Control?
Under Utah law, community association voting rights are primarily determined by the association's bylaws, with the Utah Revised Nonprofit Corporation Act serving to fill gaps where the Community Association Act and governing documents are silent. Accordingly, while these principles would generally guide the parties regarding the votes that occurred in July 2024, the Office cannot address the specific issues raised in the advisory opinion request because they occurred more than one year prior to Mr. Packer’s submission of his request.
- Can a Declarant Assign or Transfer Their Rights and Interests to a Third Party?
Utah law explicitly allows declarants to transfer or assign their rights and interests in an association to successors, defining key statutory terms to include those who receive such assignments. Applying this to Mr. Packer, because the period of administrative control concluded more than a year before he submitted his request, the Office lacks jurisdiction to address the matter.
- What are the Statutory Obligations of a Declarant During the Period of Administrative Control?
Although Utah law generally exempts declarants from various responsibilities during the period of administrative control, they are still required to reasonably maintain common areas, enforce community rules, and ensure proper financial management and disclosure. In the current matter, however, the Office cannot address Mr. Packer’s request regarding the Declarant’s obligations related to landscape maintenance and rule enforcement because the issues have been ongoing since approximately 2015, and the period of administrative control ended at the latest in July 2024. Therefore, the specific allegations raised by Mr. Packer fall outside the Office’s jurisdiction under Utah Code § 13-79-104(2)(a)(iii).
- What Records is an Association Required to Maintain and Produce Upon Request?
Under Utah law, associations must provide access to specific records upon a detailed, good-faith request, but they are permitted to redact privileged information and are not obligated to produce documents outside of statutory requirements. In this matter, the Association complied with Utah law by providing Mr. Packer with all statutorily required records while properly exercising its discretion to withhold attorney-client privileged materials and other non-statutory documents.
Summary of the Facts
A dispute arose between homeowner Brian Fielden and the Lakeside at Deer Valley Condominiums Management Committee regarding the production of association records and the transparency of financial decisions. Mr. Fielden alleged that the Committee failed to comply with statutory requirements by not providing specific documents, including vendor contracts, monthly financial statements, and legal invoices related to specialized counsel retained for an insurance claim involving the Committee President's unit. In response, the Association maintained that it satisfied all legal obligations by making all statutorily required documents available for inspection to the extent they existed. The Association further contended that current law does not mandate the production of specific vendor contracts or monthly budget reports and denied that association funds were improperly used for personal legal services. Additionally, Mr. Fielden contested the sufficiency of the time allotted for public comments during the 2025 annual meeting, while the Association argued that homeowners were provided a reasonable opportunity to speak through multiple periods for questions and discussion throughout the session.
Legal Questions Presented
- What Records is an Association Required to Maintain and Produce to Homeowners?
Under Utah law, an association must allow members to inspect specific records if the request is made in good faith, describes a proper purpose, and provides sufficient detail to identify the relevant documents. In this matter, the Association has satisfied its legal obligations by providing the records mandated by the current statute, which restricts broader access previously allowed under the outdated version of Utah law and case law cited by Mr. Fielden, along with additional documents that exceed the statutory requirements.
- What are the Requirements for Public Comment During an Association Meeting?
Under Utah Code § 57-8-57, association management committee meetings must remain open to homeowners unless specifically exempted, and the committee is required to provide homeowners a “reasonable opportunity” to comment on meeting subjects, a fact-specific standard determined by the unique circumstances of each case. In the present matter, although Mr. Fielden contested the sufficiency of the time allotted for comments during the 2025 annual meeting, the Association did not violate the law because the meeting minutes demonstrate that homeowners were given multiple opportunities to raise questions and participate in discussions throughout the session, thus satisfying the requirement to provide a reasonable chance to speak.
Summary of the Facts
In January 2025, Shiree Wilson began residency in the Cherokee Springs RV Park, a community governed by the Cherokee Springs RV Park Owners Association. In October 2025, a Board member observed Ms. Wilson’s dog on the grass of Lot 110, leading to a discussion and a subsequent exchange of text messages involving allegations of threats and selective enforcement. Following a visit from the Board president to discuss the pet issue and the nature of those text messages, the Association’s management company issued a courtesy notice and a second notice of violation for allowing a pet on another resident's property. Ms. Wilson notified management that she had received express verbal permission from a representative of the lot owner’s family for her dog to use that specific property. Management disputed that an owner could grant permission to violate community rules and requested proof of this consent, which Ms. Wilson declined to provide, asserting that the governing documents did not require such proof and that the rule restricting pet access conflicted with pet ownership rights granted in the CC&Rs. After further observations of the dog on Lot 110 in December 2025, the Association issued a $100 fine, stating they had contacted the recorded owner of the lot who denied granting any permission. Although a hearing was scheduled for December 17, 2025, to dispute the violation and fine, Ms. Wilson did not attend, and the Board subsequently issued a final determination upholding the fine.
Legal Questions Presented
- Can the Rules of an Association Expand the Limitations Set Forth in a Declaration?
Under Utah law, community association boards generally have the authority to adopt administrative rules, provided these rules do not create a direct conflict with higher-priority governing documents by forbidding or permitting actions that those documents explicitly permit or forbid, respectively. Applying this standard, the Association’s rule prohibiting pets on neighbors’ property is enforceable because it serves as a valid elaboration of the CC&Rs’ nuisance provisions rather than a contradiction, confirming that the Association did not violate state law in adopting the rules regarding pets.
- What are the Enforcement Rights of an Association?
Under Utah Code, a homeowners’ association may assess fines for rule violations if it provides a formal written warning, enforces regulations uniformly among residents, and allows the homeowner an opportunity to contest the charges through an informal board hearing. In this matter, the Association acted within its legal authority because Ms. Wilson continued her prohibited conduct following a valid courtesy notice and subsequently failed to attend her requested dispute hearing, which left the Board with the discretion to uphold the fines based on the available evidence.
Summary of the Facts
A dispute arose between Sean Kearney and the Whispering Pines Property Owners Association regarding the procedural requirements for a proposed land exchange involving 1.35 acres of association-owned open space and four water shares
Legal Questions Presented
- What are the Requirements for an Association to Transfer or Sell Common Area Property?
Under Utah law, a nonprofit association’s authority to sell property without member approval depends on whether the sale occurs within the “regular course of business,” otherwise requiring a formal board proposal and member vote under Utah Code § 16-6a-1202. In this matter, although the Association asserts that the value of the land swap alone is below the $5,000 threshold, the total transaction value—including land, water shares, and leases—clearly exceeded the $5,000 threshold set forth in the Bylaws. However, because the Association did ultimately obtain approval from 77% of the homeowners, it satisfied the necessary consent requirements and avoided a violation of Utah law.
Summary of the Facts
In 2025, Brian Benson initiated a dispute with the Pines at Jordan Landing Management Committee regarding the registration of contact information in the state's homeowners' association registry
Legal Questions Presented
- What Information is an Association Required to Provide on the Office's HOA Registry?
Under Utah Code § 57-8-13.1, homeowners’ associations must register and renew their registration annually with the Office by providing, at a minimum, specific contact information for the association president, each committee member, and a primary contact for payoff information. In this case, insofar as Desert Edge did not provide contact information as directed by the Committee members, Desert Edge, and therefore the Association, violated these requirements by listing Desert Edge’s contact details instead of the individual information specified by each Committee member, as mandated by Utah Code § 57-8-13.1.
Summary of the Facts
A dispute arose between James Wilson and the Scenic Mountain Homeowners Association over financial transparency, rule adoption, and expense allocation. Mr. Wilson alleged that the Association failed to provide specific line-item financial records and implemented unauthorized fees and rules in 2024 without proper open meetings or owner comments
Legal Questions Presented
- What Records is an Association Required to Maintain and Produce Upon Request?
Utah law requires associations to provide members with access to specific maintained records upon a good-faith, sufficiently detailed request for a proper purpose. However, an association may redact sensitive data and is not required to create new documents or provide specialized accounting services. Because Mr. Wilson’s request sought a detailed explanation of how assessments are allocated rather than specific existing records, the Association appears to have complied with the law so long as it has made the required financial documents available.
- What are the Requirements When an Association Adopts Rules?
Under Utah law, an association’s board is empowered to adopt or amend rules through a process that requires 15 days’ notice to homeowners, an opportunity for public comment at the board meeting, and the distribution of the final rules within 15 days after adoption. The Office lacks jurisdiction to address alleged procedural defects from 2024 as they occurred more than one year prior to the request, and the parties do not dispute that the 2025 rule-making process met all statutory requirements. Accordingly, the Association did not violate Utah law in adopting the 2025 rules.
- What are the Requirements and Limitations for the Use of Reserve Funds?
Utah law requires homeowners’ associations to maintain a separate reserve fund specifically for repairing or replacing common areas that the association owns and manages. These funds are intended for long-term maintenance of shared property and generally cannot be used for daily expenses without member approval. In this case, the Association acted legally in using reserve funds contributed by all homeowners because the lift stations are common areas that benefit all residents, either directly or through shared facilities such as the clubhouse. Since these stations serve the entire community, the Association is permitted to use collective reserve funds for their repair regardless of which specific homes they are located near.
- What are the Requirements and Limitations for an Association Regarding Contracting?
Under Utah law, association board members must act in the best interests of the association and may only engage in self-dealing transactions if the conflict is fully disclosed and approved by a vote of the remaining board and general membership. In this matter, the Board did not violate these standards by awarding a landscaping contract to a homeowner’s business, as the homeowner was neither a board member nor related to a board member, thereby precluding a statutory conflict of interest. Additionally, the contract was awarded through a competitive bidding process focused on the Association’s needs, so there was no violation of Utah law in awarding the contract to the homeowner.
Summary of the Facts
A dispute between Susan Karr and the Wolf Star Homeowners Association arose after water intrusion damaged the interior of Ms. Karr’s home
Legal Questions Presented
- What are the Maintenance and Repair Obligations of an Association and Homeowner, and How are the Costs Allocated Between Each Party?
Under Utah law, homeowners’ associations are responsible for maintaining common areas and providing primary insurance for attached dwellings, while individual owners are responsible for the interior of their homes and the payment of insurance deductibles in proportion to any loss. Applying these statutes to the present case, the Association is not required to reimburse Ms. Karr for the $610 investigation fee because the costs were fundamentally linked to her interior repairs, and the Association has already fulfilled its legal obligation by remediating the common area damage.
Summary of the Facts
A dispute arose between Janice Weirich and the Hill Farms Subdivision Homeowner Association after she installed a chicken coop and kept poultry on her property
Legal Questions Presented
- What are the Enforcement Rights of an Association?
Utah law permits homeowners’ associations to assess fines for governing document violations after proper notice and a cure period, while granting boards some discretionary authority to enforce governing documents without fear that non-enforcement will automatically constitute a legal waiver of future rights. In this matter, the Association maintains its right to enforce the prohibition against chickens because both Utah law and the Governing Documents protect the Board’s enforcement flexibility, and there is no indication that the Association does not consistently apply the rule to other homeowners who violate it once the violation becomes known to the Association.
- What are the Obligations of an Association when a Homeowner Seeks a Vote on an Amendment to the Governing Documents?
Under Utah law, a non-profit association may amend its governing documents via a member-initiated petition and written ballot, provided the association meets specific notice requirements and provides voters with information sufficient to make an informed decision; however, the board is not legally obligated to summarize proposed changes, campaign for the amendment, or override the association's governing documents regarding voting thresholds. In this case, the Association complied with these principles by distributing the full text of Ms. Weirich's proposed amendment and correctly applying the CC&Rs' approval requirement. Because the proposed amendment did not achieve the required 67% approval from all homeowners, the Association was correct in determining that the measure failed and did not formally amend the CC&Rs.
Summary of the Facts
The Black Bear Condominiums and homeowner Autumn Jennings were involved in a dispute regarding the validity of a significant special assessment and the association's financial management
Legal Questions Presented
- What are the Requirements for a Reserve Study, and How May Reserve Funds be Used?
Under Utah law, homeowner associations are required to conduct regular reserve analyses to identify maintenance costs for common-area components and to maintain a separate fund dedicated to those future repairs and replacements. In the present matter, the Association met these legal requirements because its reserve study provided the necessary component details, and the Board acted within its statutory discretion to determine funding levels and approve expenditures for common area maintenance.
- What are the Requirements and Obligations Associated with Special Assessments?
Under Utah law, homeowners’ associations are authorized to levy both general and special assessments for common expenses based on ownership interest, provided these charges align with the association’s governing documents and statutory definitions. In this matter, the special assessment is legally binding because it was approved by the required majority of homeowners, including Ms. Jennings herself, in accordance with the Association’s CC&Rs.
- What Records is an Association Required to Maintain and Produce Upon Request?
Utah law requires homeowners’ associations to provide members with specific financial records and reserve studies within two weeks of receiving a valid, good-faith request. In this case, the Association met its duty to provide the appropriate financial summaries to Ms. Jennings, and so long as the Association provided the reserve analysis to Ms. Jennings within 14 days of its completion, it has complied with the statutory requirements of Utah law.
Summary of the Facts
A dispute began between Scott Johnston and the Red Pine Community Association regarding how the neighborhood was being managed
Legal Questions Presented
- What are the Requirements for Management Committee Meetings?
Utah law requires homeowners’ association meetings to be open to all homeowners and to be noticed at least 48 hours in advance, unless the discussion involves specific topics such as legal advice or personnel issues. In this case, the Committee violated these requirements by failing to give proper notice and by holding a closed session to vote on Bylaw updates, which must be conducted in an open meeting.
- What are the Requirements for Calling and Holding Special Meetings?
Under Utah law, a homeowners’ association must hold a special meeting if a sufficient number of members make a written request, and the association must then provide "fair and reasonable" notice as defined by state statutes and the association's own bylaws. Although state law allows various types of notice, an association must strictly follow the specific delivery methods required by its governing documents, such as personal delivery or registered mail. In this case, the Association's original notice was correctly identified as invalid because it was sent by email rather than by personal delivery or registered mail, as required by the Bylaws. However, the Association still violated the law by failing to properly schedule and provide a corrected notice for the special meeting after the first attempt was declared invalid.
- What are the Requirements for Amending Governing Documents, and What is the Effect of Those Amendments?
Under Utah law, homeowners’ associations have the authority to set board member qualifications, such as background checks, provided they follow the specific voting and recording procedures outlined in their governing documents. These laws also require that any board discussions or internal votes regarding such changes be conducted in meetings open to all members. In this case, while the Association had the legal right to propose a code of conduct and background checks, it violated Utah law by holding those initial discussions in private rather than in an open forum. Furthermore, because the proposed changes never received the required 66.66% homeowner approval, the amendments were never legally adopted or valid.
Summary of the Facts
Lloyd Sutton and the Woodland Estates Master Association had a disagreement about how the developer managed the community's money and meetings
Legal Questions Presented
- What are the Requirements for Board Meetings During the Period of Administrative Control?
Under Utah law, homeowners’ associations must generally hold open meetings for board business, though they can take action without a meeting if done in accordance with the governing documents and Utah law. During the period of administrative control, the association is only required to hold meetings once a year, and anytime there is an increase in fees or assessments. Failure to follow these procedures does not automatically invalidate the board's actions, but it may lead to a claim from homeowners if not properly remedied. In this case, the Association complied with the law because the 2024 fee increase was properly approved by written board consent, and the 2025 increase occurred during an open meeting. Because these actions met the legal requirements and occurred during the period of administrative control, the Association did not violate its obligations to the homeowners.
- What Records is an Association Required to Maintain and Produce Upon Request, and What Fees Can Be Charged When Producing Records?
Under Utah law, homeowners' associations must provide members with access to specific financial records and meeting minutes within two weeks of a request, generally at no cost if provided electronically. While associations may charge small fees for physical copies or staff time, they must disclose all material facts regarding contracts involving the developer and cannot charge for documents that must already be available on an owner portal. In this case, the Association violated Utah law by failing to disclose the full details of a loan involving the Declarant and by improperly requiring payment for meeting minutes that should have been freely accessible online.
Summary of the Facts
In 2025, Matthew Wolfe asked the Glenwild Community Association for permission to install a permanent basketball hoop at his home
Legal Questions Presented
- What is an Association's or Architectural Review Committee's Scope of Discretion Related to Architectural and Design Review and Approval?
Under Utah law, homeowners’ associations must enforce rules uniformly and cannot block reasonable activities on a person's property that follow local laws. In this case, the ARC wrongly denied Mr. Wolfe’s request for a basketball standard based on neighbor complaints and noise concerns rather than the Association's written rules. This decision violated Utah law because, while the ARC can exercise some discretion, it must enforce rules uniformly and cannot prohibit reasonable activity when Mr. Wolfe is otherwise complying with local noise ordinances. Consequently, Mr. Wolfe must be allowed to continue the approval process based solely on the objective standards set forth in the Governing Documents.
Summary of the Facts
The Monarch Meadows Owners’ Association and homeowner Andrew King disagreed over the rules for parking vehicles on his property
Legal Question Presented
- Can an Association Restrict Parking on Driveways or Limit the Number of Vehicles Visible from the Street?
Under Utah law, homeowners' associations generally cannot use their rules or governing documents to stop residents from parking working vehicles in their own driveways. While associations can still restrict commercial vehicles, motor homes, and recreational vehicle trailers, or require that garage spaces be filled before using the driveway, they cannot impose blanket parking limits that go beyond these specific legal exceptions. In this case, the Association cannot limit the number of cars Mr. King parks in his driveway simply based on the number of garage bays he has. Unless the Association is specifically restricting statutorily restricted vehicle types or requiring him to fill his large garage first, its attempt to limit his driveway parking violates Utah law.
Summary of the Facts
Mr. Kirton owns a property in the Pine Hollow community but does not have a water connection to his lot
Legal Questions Presented
- What Records is an Association Required to Maintain and Provide to Homeowners Upon Request?
Under Utah law, homeowners’ associations must provide members with high-level financial summaries and membership lists, though they are not required to share every detailed internal document. Associations generally need only provide records from the last three years and must fulfill valid requests within 2 weeks of receiving them. In this case, Mr. Kirton requested a wide variety of specific records regarding water costs and invoices, but the Association argued it had already provided all legally required documents. Because most of the requested items were either too detailed or too old to fall within the disclosure requirements, the Association is not required to produce them. The only record Mr. Kirton asked for that the Association is legally obligated to provide is the current membership list. Consequently, the Association has violated the law only if it failed to share that specific membership list with Mr. Kirton.
- Can an Association Impose a Fee to Establish a Water Connection to a Lot?
Under Utah law, homeowners must pay their share of costs and fees as set by an association’s board based on its governing documents. While Mr. Kirton argues that the water connection fee is too high, the Association’s CC&Rs specifically allow the Board to set and collect these charges. Since Utah law does not require these fees to be based on exact costs, the Board has the authority to decide the amount it deems necessary. As a result, the Association did not violate the law by charging Mr. Kirton the connection fee.
- What are the Requirements for Imposing a Special Assessment?
Under Utah law and an association’s rules, all homeowners must pay their fair share of common expenses and assessments as determined by the board and governing documents. Although Mr. Kirton argued he should not have to pay for a waterline project that does not connect to every home, the Bylaws specifically allow the Association to charge all owners for repairs to shared resources based on their ownership interest. Because this assessment was for a common element and was properly approved by a homeowner vote, it is legally valid and binding on all members. Therefore, the Association acted within its authority, and all homeowners are required to pay the assessment regardless of whether their homes use the water system.
Summary of the Facts
Mr. Warne and the Ideal Beach Resort Homeowners Association disagreed over a $12,600 individual assessment for a 2025 roof repair project
Legal Questions Presented
- Does an Association's Board Have the Authority to Change an Assessment for Capital Expenditures Without Homeowner Approval?
Under Utah law, associations may assess unit owners for common expenses, such as maintenance, provided the charges comply with the community’s governing documents. In this case, the Project benefited only certain units, not the entire community. Since the Governing Documents allow individual assessments when maintenance is limited to certain homes, the Association did not violate the law by imposing individual assessments on the affected homeowners and bypassing the full community vote required for a community-wide special assessment.
- What are the Limits of a Board's Discretion with Respect to Common Area Maintenance?
Under Utah law, homeowners’ associations are responsible for maintaining and repairing common areas, and their boards are generally presumed to act reasonably when making these business decisions. In this case, the Board acted within its authority by using inspections from several buildings to assess the roofing needs of the entire community and by seeking new bids based on member feedback. Ultimately, the Board’s decision to select a contractor that offered a more comprehensive project at a lower total cost is a valid exercise of its professional discretion.
Summary of the Facts
In 2008, the Swan Creek Village Homeowners Association recorded governing documents stating that owners could rent their properties for periods longer than 30 days
Legal Questions Presented
- What are the Limitations on an Association's Rulemaking Authority Regarding Attorney Fees?
Under Utah law, a homeowners’ association board has the authority to create or change rules, including fees and fines, as long as they provide residents with proper notice and a chance to offer input at a meeting. While homeowners do not vote to approve these rules upfront, they have the legal right to petition for a special meeting to cancel a new rule within 60 days of its adoption. In this case, the Association’s rule requiring a homeowner to pay for legal fees resulting from a violation is valid because it is a specific penalty for individual violations rather than a general expense that must be shared by all owners. Consequently, the Association did not violate the law by adopting the Rules.
- What are the Extent and Limitations of Grandfathering Rights for Short-Term Rentals?
Utah law allows homeowners to continue renting their property if an association creates new rules that limit the number or length of rentals. In this case, Mr. Wiser argues he is protected by Utah’s rental grandfathering provisions because he has been offering short-term rentals since 2022, before the Rules were passed. However, the original Governing Documents set the minimum rental term at more than 30 days, meaning Mr. Wiser’s short-term bookings were in violation of the Governing Documents from the very beginning. Because his rentals were never legally permitted under the CC&Rs, he does not qualify for protection and must comply with the Association's current rental restrictions.
Summary of the Facts
A dispute occurred between Ms. Ratz, a Board member, and the SunRiver St. George Community Association concerning a homeowner petition seeking her removal from the Board
Legal Questions Presented
- Was the Petition for the Special Meeting Legally Valid?
Under Utah law, a homeowners’ association's own governing documents can override statutory defaults regarding special meetings because the relevant statutes include language authorizing deviation from those requirements. If the governing documents provide a specific process for members to request a meeting, those rules must be followed instead of the state's default requirements. While some specific details, such as record dates, are strictly set by statute, the association has the power to create its own procedures for signatures and voting eligibility. In this case, the Association’s Bylaws did not require signatures to be dated, so the undated signatures on the Petition were legally valid. Because the Association followed its Governing Documents in calling the special meeting, the Petition and resulting special meeting were lawful.
- What are the Requirements and Obligations Related to Conflicts of Interest?
Under Utah law, association board members must act in good faith and in the best interests of the association, while specific rules prevent them from entering into "conflicting interest transactions" like private contracts or financial deals without proper disclosure. In this case, Board members who signed and then validated the Petition did not violate Utah law regarding conflicts of interest because validating the Petition is an official duty rather than a financial contract or business deal. Even if a conflict were possible, the action was legally fair because the Petition would have received enough support to move forward even without the Board members' signatures. Therefore, the Board acted within its legal authority and did not engage in any prohibited conduct or violate Utah law.
- What are the Requirements for Proxy Voting?
Utah law and association bylaws allow members to vote by proxy, but any removal of a director must occur at a specific meeting where the meeting notice clearly states the purpose of the meeting. While the first proxy form used in this case was valid because it correctly identified the vote to remove Ms. Ratz, the second form failed to specify that purpose. Because this second form was a holdover from a previous year and did not follow Bylaw requirements for specificity, any proxies submitted using that form would be invalid.
Summary of the Facts
Mr. Harris, a homeowner in the Steeplechase Owners Association, disputed the Association's authority to enforce parking restrictions on public streets within the Association. The Association's CC&Rs included a provision in Article IV, Section 2(h), stating that no vehicle could be parked on any subdivision street unless there was insufficient parking on the owner's lot, and that any vehicle parked on the street must be moved within 24 hours. On December 10, 2025, the Association published a Rules and Regulations document that restated and expanded on those parking restrictions and established fines for violations. On December 19, 2025, Mr. Harris emailed the Association to challenge the Association's legal authority to enforce civil penalties for parking on public, city-owned streets. The Association responded by maintaining that the parking restrictions were enforceable under the CC&Rs and Utah law, arguing that the restrictions had been part of the CC&Rs since 2002, that they were private agreements running with the land, and that because Draper City independently regulated street parking, the Association could also enforce similar or more stringent restrictions.
Legal Questions Presented
- What are the Limits of an Association's Authority Regarding Parking Restrictions?
Utah law allows community associations to create and amend rules through a specific process that requires advance notice and a meeting at which homeowners can provide input. However, Utah law strictly prohibits associations from imposing any restrictions on the use of public streets, and this legal ban overrides any contrary language in an association’s governing documents, regardless of when the association's CC&Rs were recorded. Consequently, the Association cannot enforce its parking restrictions.
Summary of the Facts
In 2023, Mr. Green, an owner at the Vivante Homeowners Association, reportedly received permission from the Association's previous management company to rent his unit. On July 1, 2025, Mr. Green obtained a West Valley City business license for the rental of his property. On July 30, 2025, the Association's Management Committee identified an active online listing advertising the rental of individual bedrooms within Mr. Green's unit and noted that no rental permission documentation was on file, leading the Association to issue a violation letter and a $300.00 fine on August 2, 2025. An additional fine of $35.50 was placed on Mr. Green's account on August 31, 2025. On September 2, 2025, Mr. Green informed the Association that he was not currently renting his unit, provided his business license, and stated that he had previously received rental permission. The Association responded that its CC&Rs and Rules required written permission and prohibited renting separate rooms. Following additional correspondence in September 2025, the Association removed the $300.00 fine and a $25.00 late fee from Mr. Green's account on September 12, 2025, though the Association noted on September 15, 2025, that the online listing remained active. On October 7, 2025, Mr. Green submitted a formal written request to the Association for permission to rent a portion of his unit as a limited, owner-occupied rental. On October 21, 2025, the Association notified Mr. Green that the Management Committee had approved renting only one bedroom, subject to the submission of a non-owner agreement. On October 26, 2025, Mr. Green requested permission to rent two bedrooms while continuing to occupy the unit as his primary home, which the Association denied on October 31, 2025, reaffirming its approval of only one bedroom. On December 1, 2025, the Association provided its official reasoning for the denial, citing limited guest parking, the potential for excessive use of common amenities by multiple non-owner residents, and concerns about the owner's intentions regarding residency. On January 19, 2026, Mr. Green sent a formal written response challenging the legality of the one-bedroom restriction under Utah law and the Association's CC&Rs and requesting a response within 10 business days.
Legal Questions Presented
- What are the Requirements and Limitations of Rental Restrictions Within a Condo Association?
Utah law allows condominium associations to set rental rules to manage parking and shared spaces, provided those rules are written in the governing documents. In this case, the Association limited Mr. Green to renting out only one bedroom due to concerns about neighborhood parking and the use of common areas and facilities. This restriction is legally valid because the Association’s rules require approval for renting individual rooms, and Utah law permits limits that protect the fair use of common areas for all residents. Ultimately, the Association’s decision was a reasonable compromise that followed the law while balancing Mr. Green's request with the needs of the entire community.
Summary of the Facts
A dispute arose between Mr. Ferguson and the Northmoor Southmoor Homeowners Association over the Board's authority to fund new community amenities. Beginning in 2019, the Board held multiple meetings to discuss completing Southmoor Park, which included plans for a concrete pad and a pavilion. These projects were delayed for several years due to a lack of available funds. In October 2025, the Board approved a budget for the following year that increased monthly assessments from $50 to $55 and accepted a $5,200 bid to install a concrete pad. Mr. Ferguson challenged this decision, arguing that the Association's governing documents permitted only the maintenance of existing common areas and did not authorize spending on new "capital improvements". In contrast, the Association asserted that the Board had the legal and fiduciary authority to improve common areas and noted that the park project was an effort to complete a plan initiated by the developer.
Legal Questions Presented
- What are the Rights and Limitations of an Association's Board to Raise Assessments for the Purpose of Investing in Common Area Improvements?
Under Utah law, association boards are responsible for maintaining common areas and have the authority to set annual budgets and levy assessments against homeowners to cover those costs, with homeowners having the right to vote to disapprove a budget within 45 days of its presentation. In this matter, Mr. Ferguson argued that the Association violated Utah law and its Governing Documents by raising annual assessments to fund the expansion and completion of a community park, claiming that the bylaws permitted only the maintenance of existing common areas, not new improvements. However, the Bylaws require only a minimum standard of upkeep and do not prohibit improvements. Additionally, the CC&Rs authorize the Board to manage and improve common areas, including parks, and to raise assessments for that purpose, subject to member voting requirements if the increase exceeded 25% of the prior year's amount. Because the Association followed its Governing Documents in budgeting for and pursuing the park project, and because Mr. Ferguson did not use the available budget disapproval process, the Association did not violate Utah law by increasing annual assessments to fund the park's completion.
Summary of the Facts
A dispute arose between Mr. Metcalf and the CK Farms Homeowners Association over property maintenance and the transparency of official records
Legal Questions Presented
- What Records are an Association Required to Maintain and Produce Upon Request?
Under Utah law, homeowners’ association members have the right to access certain association records, including meeting minutes, financial documents, and board contact information, and associations must fulfill valid requests within two weeks or by making documents available through an online portal. In this matter, Mr. Metcalf requested board contact information, meeting minutes, reserve fund information, and the date of the next annual meeting. The Association's use of an owner portal and its registration with the Office satisfy its obligations for the financial records and contact information; however, the Declarant, on behalf of the Association, violated Utah law by failing to maintain minutes from the annual meetings it was required to hold since the CC&Rs were recorded in 2019.
- What are the Statutory Obligations of a Declarant Regarding Common Areas During the Period of Administrative Control?
Under Utah law, a declarant is required to use reasonable care and prudence when managing and maintaining an association's common areas during the period of administrative control. In this case, because individual builders are responsible for the work they complete or damage they cause, the Association meets this legal standard so long as it actively works with those builders to address common-area repairs and ensure they comply with their contracts. While individual homeowners are responsible for defects on their own private property, the Association's duty is fulfilled by overseeing the completion and maintenance of shared spaces.
Summary of the Facts
In February 2026, a water leak was discovered beneath the floor of Mr. Levine's condominium unit within the Association. Excavation revealed that the source was a copper water line in a utility stack beneath Mr. Levine's unit, serving the building's domestic water and fire suppression systems. Mr. Levine engaged contractors to perform emergency mitigation, structural restoration, and equipment relocation. His water heater — removed during the mitigation process — failed upon reinstallation and had to be replaced. Total costs across all services exceeded $15,000, which were all covered by Mr. Levine's personal insurance. Mr. Levine argued that the Association was responsible for these costs because the leak originated in a common-area utility stack, while the Association maintained that its obligations had been met and that responsibility rested with Mr. Levine because the damage occurred within his unit.
Legal Questions Presented
- Who is Responsible for the Repair Costs of a Home, and How are Those Costs Paid For?
Under Utah law, a condominium association must maintain insurance covering all physical structures, including individual units, and the association's policy must serve as the primary coverage for any loss, with the individual homeowner responsible for paying the association's deductible. In this matter, the central dispute was whether the Association or Mr. Levine was responsible for the costs arising from a broken pipe in a common-area utility stack that caused water damage to Mr. Levine's unit. Because the pipe was located in a common area and served multiple units within the Association, the Association is required to pay for its repair, as well as any insurance payments made under Mr. Levine's personal policy that should have been covered under the Association's policy instead. However, the costs Mr. Levine incurred to diagnose the underlying problem are considered part of his own efforts to protect his home, and the Association is not required to reimburse him for those expenses.
Summary of the Facts
Mr. Alexander, a homeowner in the Association, requested access to a range of the Association's financial documents, including bank statements, transaction registers, vendor contracts, vendor invoices, and vendor bids and proposals. The Association denied several of these requests, taking the position that the requested documents did not qualify as Association records under Utah law and that Mr. Alexander had not demonstrated a proper purpose for his requests. Mr. Alexander disputed the Association's position, arguing that the requested documents were core financial records that he had a statutory right to inspect and that no proper purpose was required for routine financial records. On October 31, 2024, Association members holding more than 67% of total votes approved an amendment to the CC&Rs that limited owner record inspection rights to only those items explicitly required under Utah law. In December 2025 and January 2026, Mr. Alexander submitted new written requests to inspect financial records, and the Association agreed to coordinate a time for review. On January 21, 2026, an in-person records review meeting took place, during which Mr. Alexander scanned various invoices, contracts, and bids, but noted that several items were missing. In follow-up communications, Mr. Alexander identified the outstanding records as 2024 and 2025 operating account bank statements, 2024 and 2025 Quicken transaction registers, and a $14,000 aeration contract and invoice. The Association again denied these requests on January 28, 2026.
Legal Questions Presented
- What Records is an Association Required to Maintain and Produce Upon Request?
Under Utah Code §§ 57-8a-227 and 16-6a-1601, an association must provide members with access to core financial records — such as balance sheets, income statements, and cash flow statements — but is not required to disclose every financial transaction, receipt, or contract a homeowner may request. In this matter, Mr. Alexander sought transaction-level financial detail, including bank statements, a complete transaction register, and certain vendor contracts, while the Association argued it had already fulfilled its legal obligations by providing monthly financial reports, cash reserve statements, budgets, and numerous vendor contracts and invoices. Because the Association provided the summary financial records required by statute, it complied with Utah law, and any decision to disclose additional documents beyond those requirements is left to the Association's discretion.
Summary of the Facts
A dispute arose between Ms. Fritsche and the Association's Board over the Association's financial recordkeeping and disclosure practices. Beginning in early 2026, Ms. Fritsche sought financial records from the Association, including the 2025 financial statements, reserve accounting, and general accounting records for the prior three years, as well as information about a proposed deck replacement project that carried a special assessment of $24,000 per unit. On January 20, 2026, Ms. Fritsche emailed the Association requesting invoices, financial statements, and a project status update. The Association responded two days later but did not provide the financial statements. Over the following weeks, the Association communicated with Ms. Fritsche and other owners about the deck project, including a virtual Q&A meeting held on March 12, 2026, and a homeowner vote that closed on March 22, 2026, with the special assessment passing 19-1. On March 20, 2026, Ms. Fritsche submitted a formal records request to the Association. The Association maintained an online owner portal through its property management company, where all available records were posted. The Association's CPA did not finalize the 2025 compiled financial statements until April 8, 2026, after the two-week response deadline had passed, and the Association provided those statements to Ms. Fritsche by email on April 15, 2026. Ms. Fritsche asserted that the documents provided were inadequate because they did not include a detailed accounting of 2025 expenditures and reserve management, while the Association maintained that all required records had been made available through the owner portal or provided directly to Ms. Fritsche within the time allowed by law.
Legal Questions Presented
- What Records is an Association Required to Maintain and Produce Upon Request?
Utah law requires associations to provide members with access to specific categories of records, including governing documents, meeting minutes, budgets, financial statements, and reserve analyses, within 2 weeks of a valid request, and permits compliance by posting the records to an owner portal. Although Ms. Fritsche's Advisory Opinion application was technically premature because it was filed the same day as her records request, before the Association's compliance window had closed, the Office addresses the merits because the compliance period has since expired and the record is fully developed. The Association maintained an owner portal on which all required records were posted; its 2025 financial statements, finalized by its CPA after the compliance deadline, were provided to Ms. Fritsche within a reasonable time after they became available; and the internal board deliberation records she also requested fell outside the categories subject to mandatory disclosure. Accordingly, the Association satisfied its statutory obligations, and no violation of Utah law has been established.
Summary of the Facts
A dispute arose between Mr. Payne and the Association regarding procedural compliance with the Association's governing documents and Utah law. Beginning in January 2024, Mr. Payne and other owners formally asked the Board to address what they described as missing financial records and the absence of required independent annual audits. In July 2025, the Board voted to change the clubhouse reservation fee from $20 to $50 (non-refundable) and add a new $20 refundable cleaning fee, which Mr. Payne challenged as improperly adopted. In October 2025, the Office issued Advisory Opinion 2025-01, finding that the Association had not complied with requirements related to audits, budget distribution, and financial record-keeping. Shortly after, Mr. Payne alleged that the Association's approval of the 2026 budget violated open meeting requirements and that the Association had failed to provide updated insurance certificates upon request. In March 2026, Trustee elections were conducted by voice acclamation rather than secret ballot at a reconvened annual meeting, which Mr. Payne objected to as inconsistent with the Bylaws' secret ballot requirement. The Association maintained throughout the dispute that its financial management, fee practices, and election procedures were consistent with standard practices and its governing documents, and that it had addressed records transparency concerns by making insurance documents available through an online owner portal.
Legal Questions Presented
- What are the Requirements for Adopting an Association's Budget?
Before May 6, 2026, neither the Utah Condominium Ownership Act nor the Utah Revised Nonprofit Corporation Act required a condominium association to adopt an annual budget, and any annual requirements came solely from the association's governing documents, which must be followed under Utah Code § 57-8-8. Applying these principles to Mr. Payne's complaint, because the Association's CC&Rs required only that a budget be prepared and distributed to owners by December 15 and did not require adoption at an open meeting, and because the record shows the budget was discussed at the October 2025 board meeting, it did not violate Utah law with respect to the 2026 budget. However, with the enactment of Utah Code § 57-8-7.6, as of May 6, 2026, the Association is now required to prepare and adopt an annual budget, present it to homeowners at an open meeting, and allow homeowners a 45-day window to disapprove the adopted budget. Therefore, the process used for the 2026 budget complied with the law at the time it was adopted, but going forward, the Association must update its practices to meet these new statutory requirements.
- What Records is an Association Required to Maintain and Produce Upon Request?
Under Utah law, condominium associations must make certain records, including insurance certificates, available to homeowners, and must respond to valid records requests within 2 weeks or face daily fines and other penalties. Mr. Payne alleged that the Association violated Utah law by failing to provide updated insurance certificates, but the Association responded that all required records are available through an online homeowner portal. The evidence shows that the 2025–2026 insurance certificate was uploaded to the portal on February 19, 2026, the same date it was issued by the insurance company, and there is no evidence that the Association received it any earlier. Based on the available information, the Association made the insurance certificate available to homeowners as soon as it received it from the insurer and therefore did not violate Utah law.
- What are the Requirements for Adopting Rules and Fees?
Under Utah law, a condominium association's board has broad authority to adopt and enforce reasonable rules governing common areas, including the power to impose fees for their use, but any fee charged to homeowners must be formally adopted in a written fee schedule and provided to all unit owners. In this matter, Mr. Payne challenged a July 2025 Board decision to change the clubhouse reservation fee from $20 to $50 (non-refundable) and add a new $20 refundable cleaning deposit, arguing the changes were not properly authorized. The Association maintained that the Board had authority under the CC&Rs to impose reasonable fees. Although the Board had the underlying authority to set clubhouse fees and had done so since 2005, it was required to formally amend the existing fee schedule or adopt a new one, and provide a copy of the new schedule to each owner before changing the amounts charged to homeowners, and the record shows that this formal process did not occur. Because the Board changed the fee amounts without following the required adoption process under Utah Code § 57-8-8.1(17), the Association violated Utah law, regardless of whether the new fees were otherwise reasonable.
- What are the Voting Requirements for Board Member Elections?
Under the Utah Condominium Ownership Act and the Utah Revised Nonprofit Corporation Act, association board elections are primarily governed by the association's own bylaws, which can override default statutory voting rules, including requirements like secret ballots. Here, the Association's Bylaws explicitly required board elections to be conducted by secret ballot under Section 3.08, meaning that electing members by acclamation rather than secret ballot would ordinarily be inconsistent with that requirement. However, Section 3.09 of the same Bylaws contains a waiver provision stating that irregularities in the voting method are waived if no objection is raised at the meeting, and it is undisputed that Mr. Payne did not object at the meeting when the vote occurred. Because Mr. Payne failed to raise his objection at the time of the vote, any irregularity in the voting method was waived under the Bylaws, thereby precluding him from now alleging a violation of Utah law.
Summary of the Facts
A dispute arose between Ms. Vander Velden and the Association over the Association's obligations to create, maintain, and produce corporate governance records related to Board member appointments, seatings, resignations, and effective dates. Beginning in January 2026, Ms. Vander Velden submitted multiple requests, first through the homeowner portal and later by formal email, seeking administrative records related to Board appointment and membership history dating back to October 1, 2024. The Association produced various documents, directed Ms. Vander Velden to meeting minutes and records available on the homeowner portal, and characterized the additional records she sought as internal administrative workflow rather than official corporate records. Ms. Vander Velden contended that the Association had not fully complied with her request and asked for written confirmation identifying which records did not exist, had not been retained, or were otherwise unavailable. The Association maintained that it had produced all records in its possession and that any gaps were the result of prior boards and management companies failing to create or retain them.
Legal Questions Presented
- What Records is an Association Required to Maintain and Produce Upon Request?
Utah Code § 57-8a-227 and Utah Code § 16-6a-1601 require associations to keep and produce specific records upon request, and under Utah Code § 57-8a-227(1)(c)-(d), those records are the association's property and must be returned at no cost by any third party holding them. Ms. Vander Velden argues the Association violated Utah law by failing to produce complete historical Board records and explain any gaps; the Association responds that it produced all records in its possession and that any gaps do not constitute a violation. Because Utah Code § 57-8a-227(1) places ultimate responsibility on the Board, even when duties are delegated to a management company, the failure to secure required records during the November 2024 management transition constitutes a technical violation, though the Association has otherwise complied by producing all currently available records.
Summary of the Facts
A dispute arose between Ms. Monson and the Association over the enforcement of a CC&R provision governing the storage of recreational vehicles on Association property. On March 2, 2026, residents raised concerns at a Board meeting about motor homes parked in driveways, and Ms. Monson objected under the CC&Rs. The Board found no existing rules addressing the issue, directed its Document Review Committee to review the CC&Rs and applicable laws, and, on March 7, 2026, voted to seek legal counsel. On March 8, 2026, Ms. Monson filed a formal written complaint identifying four lots where she believed Class B motorhomes were being stored in driveways in violation of Article X, Section 9 of the CC&Rs. The Board responded the same day, informing her that the review and legal consultation were ongoing. On March 24, 2026, the Board sent a memo to all homeowners reporting that its attorney had identified an ambiguity between the terms "parking" and "storing" in the CC&Rs, resolved to suspend enforcement of the relevant provision, and announced plans to survey homeowners about a potential CC&R amendment. On March 25, 2026, Ms. Monson submitted a written objection to the suspension of enforcement and a records request for the attorney's legal opinion and related documents, arguing the Board had waived attorney-client privilege by publicly relying on the substance of that advice. On March 31, 2026, the Association's attorney denied the request on privilege grounds, provided the other requested documents, and noted that the advice had been given verbally and that no written legal opinion existed.
Legal Questions Presented
- Who is Considered a Lot Owner under Utah Code §§ 13-79 and 57-8a?
Although Utah law does not directly address whether property held in a revocable family trust qualifies a person as a "lot owner," Utah courts have established that settlors of such trusts retain "functional ownership" because they keep the right to amend, transfer, or terminate the trust at any time. The Association argues that Ms. Monson lacks standing because her property is titled in a trust rather than in her name, but because she is both the settlor and trustee of a revocable family trust, she retains functional ownership of the property, and therefore qualifies as a lot owner under Utah Code §§ 13-79 and 57-8a, with full standing to pursue her Advisory Opinion request.
- What Records are Associations Required to Maintain and Produce Upon Request?
Under Utah Code § 57-8a-227, homeowners have the right to inspect and copy association records, but the law also expressly allows associations to withhold or redact documents protected by attorney-client privilege. In this matter, Ms. Monson requested communications between the Board and its attorney regarding the decision not to enforce certain parking rules, but the Association refused to produce them on the basis of attorney-client privilege. Because that privilege belongs to the Association and its Board, not to individual homeowners, the Association did not violate Utah law by refusing to disclose those communications, and the fact that the Board referenced its attorney's advice when updating homeowners does not, by itself, waive the privilege. The Office notes, however, that the privilege could be waived if the Board shares significant portions of the actual communications with people outside the Board, so Board members should take care to protect the substance of those underlying communications.
Summary of the Facts
A dispute arose between Mr. Stapley and the Association regarding amendments to the Governing Documents that were recorded shortly before Mr. Stapley purchased Unit 300 at a foreclosure auction in February 2026. Under the Association's original CC&Rs, recorded in 1978, Unit 300 carried a 1.1% undivided ownership interest in the common areas with no assigned parking space or storage unit, while all other units carried a 4.3% interest and had both amenities assigned. In July 2024, the Association formed a steering committee to restate its governing documents to address historical inconsistencies, including Unit 300's lack of parking and storage. Between November and December 2025, approximately 71% of the voting interest approved the amended CC&Rs, which were recorded on December 15, 2025. The amendments increased Unit 300's ownership interest from 1.1% to 3.17%, raised its monthly assessment, assigned it a dedicated parking space and storage locker, and added a provision allowing the Association to bid on foreclosed units. Mr. Stapley stated that he was unaware of these changes before purchasing the unit and disputed their validity and the timing of the amendments relative to the foreclosure sale. The Association maintained that the amendments were properly adopted and recorded nearly two months before the auction and that Mr. Stapley was responsible for reviewing all recorded documents before completing his purchase.
Legal Questions Presented
- What are the Requirements for Amending an Association's Governing Documents?
Utah law caps the homeowner approval required to amend governing documents at 67%, and this rule applies to all associations regardless of when they were formed. However, an exception allows a higher threshold when an amendment affects only homeowners' ownership shares in common areas. Applied here, that exception did not apply because the Amended CC&Rs included changes beyond common-area interests, such as updates to the foreclosure process and technical statutory compliance edits, thereby keeping the 67% cap in effect. Because the Association obtained the required approval, the amendment was validly adopted and enforceable, making the ownership interests and assessment calculations legally valid and binding against Mr. Stapley.
Summary of the Facts
Mr. Katz and the Association disagreed over whether the 2026 annual budget had been properly adopted, with Mr. Katz arguing the budget was not adopted in accordance with Utah law and the Association's governing documents, while the Association maintained the budget approval process was lawful. In January 2026, the Association sent homeowners notice of the annual meeting. The annual meeting was held on January 24, 2026, with both in-person and virtual attendees. At the meeting, Katz verbally objected, but the board held a voice vote on the 2026 budget, which passed.
Legal Questions Presented
- What are the Requirements for an Association's Budget?
Under Utah Code § 57-8a-215, a homeowners’ association's board has sole authority to prepare and adopt the annual budget. Homeowners have no right to approve a budget but do have a limited right to disapprove it within 45 days after it is presented. As such, the quorum thresholds that must be met to approve the budget are the thresholds that apply to a board vote under Utah Code § 16-6a-816(1), rather than the quorum thresholds applicable to a member vote as stated in Utah Code § 16-6a-714(1)(a). Mr. Katz argued that the Association violated the law because the 2026 budget was adopted at a member meeting at which homeowners voted online without a proper member quorum, whereas the Association argued that no homeowner quorum or approval was required for the budget to take effect. Because homeowners had no statutory right to approve or vote on the budget, the member quorum requirement did not apply, and since a majority of the board was present and voted to adopt the budget, the board satisfied its own quorum requirement, meaning the budget was validly adopted and presented in accordance with Utah law.
Summary of the Facts
A dispute arose between Mr. Batty-Whitney and the Association over the handling of member contact information and a related records request. Mr. Batty-Whitney contended that a Board member improperly shared his contact information, that it was further disclosed to a non-member, and that a committee used it to send unsolicited text messages to select homeowners; he also contended that the Association failed to respond to his request for board communications about the handling of member data. The Association maintained that Utah law allowed the Board to authorize use of membership information for Association business without homeowner consent, and that it had no obligation to produce internal Board communications. According to the record, a Board member shared a spreadsheet of homeowner contact information with the water committee in December 2025, which the committee used to text certain homeowners about an upcoming water education meeting; Mr. Batty-Whitney, who received one of these messages, later objected at a Board meeting, where a Board member acknowledged sharing the list and called it a mistake.
Legal Questions Presented
- What are the Limitations on the Disclosure and Use of an Association Membership List?
Utah law requires homeowners' associations to maintain and provide access to specific records, including governing documents, meeting minutes, financial statements, and a membership list. Homeowners may inspect or copy those records, but the association has no obligation to produce records outside that defined list. Because the board emails Mr. Batty-Whitney requested fall outside the records required by law, the Association was not obligated to produce them; and because Utah law allows the Board to authorize uses of the membership list that may otherwise be restricted, the Board's approval of the water committee's use of member contact information to notify homeowners about an Association-sponsored event was within the Board’s authority. Accordingly, the Association did not violate Utah law either by denying Mr. Batty Whitney's records request or by sharing member contact information with the water committee.
Summary of the Facts
A dispute arose between Mr. Smith and the Association over the Board's handling of vendor contracts, access to vendor payment records, the timing of emergency gate repairs, and a homeowner petition. In September 2025, Mr. Smith and other residents asked the Board for lawn care contracts, vendor payment records, and bidding documents; the Board declined to release specific vendor payment amounts, citing competitive concerns, and instead pointed residents to budgets posted online while also beginning to post quarterly expenditures. At the March 16, 2026, annual meeting, Mr. Smith attempted to present a petition, signed by more than half the community, to increase Board membership from four to five, but the Board declined to discuss it because it had not been submitted to the agenda by the required deadline.
Legal Questions Presented
- What Records are Associations Required to Maintain and Produce Upon Request?
Under Utah Code § 57-8a-227, homeowners' associations must keep and provide certain records, including "appropriate accounting records" as referenced in Utah Code § 16-6a-1601(2). Mr. Smith claims the Association violated this law by refusing to provide the vendor contracts and payment information he requested, while the Association responds that the amounts paid to vendors are already reflected in its budget and financial statements posted online, and that releasing the additional records would harm its ability to negotiate fairly with vendors. Because the requested contracts and payment records were the actual documents used to build the Association's budget and verify its financial statements, they count as accounting records that the Association must produce, so while posting the budget and financial statements online satisfied part of the Association's duty, the Association still violated the law by withholding the underlying contracts and payment records the Board relied on. However, the requested bids and proposals that were never executed and do not form the basis for the Association’s budget do not constitute appropriate accounting records, and the Association did not violate Utah law in refusing to provide them to Mr. Smith.
- What is the Process for a Homeowner Petition?
Utah law allows homeowners to call a special meeting by written demand, but this default rule is superseded when an association's bylaws establish a different process. Here, Mr. Smith and other homeowners attempted to raise a petition to increase board membership during a regularly scheduled meeting, but neither Utah Code § 16-6a-702 nor the Association's Bylaws, which required a written request from at least one-quarter of all members, allow for that approach. Because the homeowners failed to request a special meeting as outlined in the Governing Documents, the Association did not violate Utah law by refusing to address the petition.
Summary of the Facts
A dispute arose between Mr. Goldhammer and the Association over the validity of the Association's Dispute Resolution Policy. Mr. Goldhammer contended that the Policy unlawfully restricted homeowners' rights by requiring a lengthy internal process before seeking relief in court or filing a complaint with the Office of the Homeowners' Association Ombudsman, and that it improperly let the Board decide whether a homeowner could skip that process, even when the Board itself was involved in the dispute. The Association contended that the Policy was legally sound, did not restrict any statutory rights, and was a standard governance tool the Board was authorized to adopt. After a change in Board leadership and management in September 2025, the Association notified homeowners in January 2026 of a February 10, 2026, meeting to consider rule changes, including the Policy. At that meeting, the Board discussed the Policy but did not vote on it, and Mr. Goldhammer raised concerns that were later submitted in writing. The Association then gave notice of an April 7, 2026, meeting to vote on the proposed changes. At the April 7, 2026, meeting, the Board voted to adopt the Policy, which was posted to the Association's owners' portal the next day.
Legal Questions Presented
- What are the Requirements When an Association Adopts Rules or Policies?
Under Utah Code § 57-8a-217(1)(a), an association's board may adopt or amend rules—defined by Utah Code § 57-8a-102(27) as policies, guidelines, restrictions, procedures, or regulations not set forth in the association's governing documents—so long as the board gives homeowners at least 15 days' notice, allows comment at the meeting under Utah Code § 57-8a-217(2), and distributes the adopted rule within 15 days under Utah Code § 57-8a-214, after which homeowners may pursue disapproval through a petition-driven special meeting under Utah Code § 57-8a-217(4)-(5). Mr. Goldhammer argues the Policy unlawfully restricts homeowners' access to the Office and creates a conflict of interest by making the Association a party to disputes it governs, while the Association contends its board acted within its statutory authority in adopting the Policy to resolve disputes more efficiently. Because the Association provided timely notice, held a meeting with an open comment period, and distributed the adopted Policy as required, the Association complied with Utah Code § 57-8a-217 and did not violate Utah law in adopting or implementing the policy.
Summary of the Facts
Ms. Aliu fell behind on her monthly assessments starting in November 2025. The Association responded by sending an email notice of the balance owed, followed by a Notice of Intent to Lien and, in March 2026, a recorded lien. The Association also tried to deliver notice by certified mail on multiple occasions, but each attempt was unsuccessful, and USPS left pickup notices at Ms. Aliu's home. In April 2026, Ms. Aliu made payments totaling $1,420.00 that she marked for application only to her delinquent assessments, and she disputed the fees, the acceleration of her 2026 assessments, and the lien with both the Association and its legal counsel. The Association applied the payments in accordance with its governing documents rather than Ms. Aliu's instructions. Ms. Aliu argued she did not receive proper notice because the Association used certified mail instead of email, while the Association maintained it gave notice through both methods and acted in accordance with its governing documents and Utah law. With the dispute unresolved, Ms. Aliu requested this Advisory Opinion from the Office of the Homeowners' Association Ombudsman.
Legal Questions Presented
- What are the Requirements When an Association Imposes a Lien for Unpaid Assessments?
Under Utah Code § 57-8-44, an association holds an automatic lien on a unit for unpaid assessments from the moment the declaration is recorded, and while Utah Code § 57-8-42 requires that collection notices be fair and reasonable, neither that provision nor Utah Code § 57-8-44 specifies any particular delivery method. Ms. Aliu argued that the Association violated Utah law by sending the demand letter and lien notice by certified mail rather than email, as it had previously done. The Association responded that notice was properly given through both prior emails identifying the balance due and certified mail for the formal demand and lien. Because the lien was already perfected by the recorded declaration and certified mail is a reasonable and standard delivery method under Utah Code § 57-8-42, Ms. Aliu's failure to retrieve the certified letters did not render the Association's notice improper, and the Association did not violate Utah law in imposing the lien for unpaid assessments.
Disclaimer
As a means of resolving disputes between HOAs and homeowners, the Office of the Homeowners’ Association Ombudsman is authorized to issue Advisory Opinions under Utah Code § 13-79-104. An Advisory Opinion is a legal analysis of a specific question or questions, thoroughly evaluating facts presented by all parties. An attorney within the Office is appointed to prepare a reasoned written opinion that attempts to predict how a court would decide the matter.
Advisory Opinions analyze specific fact patterns and situations, and should be read as informal and advisory. Advisory Opinions should not be used as precedent, and do not control other situations. Readers should remember that the unique facts behind each Advisory Opinion are critical to the conclusion.
Although the Advisory Opinions apply general legal principles, each situation is unique, and various legal and factual factors affect the analysis. A different outcome may be justified, even in similar factual situations. Moreover, laws change over time, and new appellate cases provide new interpretations of existing laws that impact the analysis of an Advisory Opinion. Readers should be advised that the Advisory Opinions provide general guidance and information to assist the specific parties in resolving the dispute in the Advisory Opinion informally. Specific questions and factual situations should be directed to the Office of the Homeowners’ Association Ombudsman or private legal counsel to be analyzed according to current laws.
