New 2015 HOA Laws – Open Meetings

July 1, 2015

By Curtis G. Kimble.

Continuing our summary of the new laws affecting HOAs in 2015, effective July 1, 2015, both the Utah Condominium Ownership Act and the Utah Community Association Act require board meetings to be open to each homeowner (or homeowner’s designated representative).

Open Meetings; Exception.

Utah Code 57-8-57 (for condos) and 57-8a-226 (for non-condo HOAs) require open board meetings, with the exception that executive sessions may be closed to the owners for the following purposes: to consult with an attorney or to discuss ongoing litigation, personnel matters, contract negotiations, delinquencies, and matters involving an individual if privacy is required.

Comment Period at Meetings.

Additionally, at each board meeting, the board must provide each owner a reasonable opportunity to offer comments, but the board may limit the comments to one specific time period during the meeting and may limit the time allotted to each owner to comment.

Notice of Meetings.

If an owner has requested notice of a board meeting, the association must give written notice of a board meeting at least 48 hours before a meeting to the owner who requested it, unless notice of the meeting is included in a meeting schedule that was previously provided to that owner, or the meeting is to address an emergency and each board member receives notice of the meeting less than 48 hours before the meeting.

The notice to the owner must (i) be delivered to the owner by email, to the email address that the owner provides to the board or the association; (ii) state the time and date of the meeting; (iii) state the location of the meeting; and (iv) if a board member may participate by means of electronic communication, provide the information necessary to allow the owner to participate by the available means of electronic communication.

Exactly what constitutes a board meeting?

A board “meeting” means “a gathering of a board, whether in person or by means of electronic communication, at which the board can take binding action.”  (Utah Code 57-8a-102(16), 57-8-3(27)).  “Means of electronic communication” means an electronic system that allows individuals to communicate orally in real time, including web conferencing, video conferencing, and telephone conferencing (Utah Code 57-8a-102(15), 57-8-3(26)).

Action/decisions without a Meeting.

A meeting requires a gathering of the board in a way that they are communicating live and in real time.  It does not include actions or decisions taken without a meeting, as is commonly done by boards (most commonly through email).  However, specific requirements must be followed by a board in taking an action or making a decision without a meeting.  These requirements are spelled out (for associations that are nonprofit corporations) in Utah Code Section 16-6a-813, which, significantly, was also changed this year.

Under the prior law, a board could make decisions or take an action without a meeting if each member of the board either: (1) voted for the action, or (2) waived the right to demand that the decision/action be made or taken at a meeting and either voted against the action or abstained from voting.  Now, unanimous consent of the members of the board is needed for the action or decision being made or taken without a meeting, unless an association’s bylaws specifically provide that an action or decision may be taken without a meeting without the board unanimously consenting to the action or decision being made.

If the bylaws do authorize it, the statute sets out the required procedure for a board to make a decision or take an action without a meeting without the board unanimously consenting to the action or decision being made (regardless of any contrary procedure in your bylaws).  The statute requires notice to be sent to each member of the board containing certain items listed in the statute.   Then each member of the board has to either (1) sign a writing in favor of the action/decision, or (2) sign a writing against the action/decision, abstain in writing from voting, or fail to respond or vote or demand in writing that the action or decision be made at a meeting.  All of these “writings” and communications can be delivered electronically (e.g., as an email), in which case, the date on which such an electronic transmission is transmitted is considered the date on which the vote, abstention, demand, or revocation is signed.

Declarant/developer Controlled Associations.

The open meetings laws do not apply to associations that are still under “declarant” (developer) control (where the declarant appoints the board).


The law stipulates certain penalties and procedures if an association does not comply.  Essentially, an owner can make demand for compliance on the association stating which requirements the association has failed to comply with.  Then, if 90 days elapses without compliance after a proper demand, the owner may file an action in court for a court order requiring the association to comply and to pay a $500 penalty.  The court may also require that the prevailing party be reimbursed its costs and attorney fees by the non-prevailing party.

2015 Condo and HOA Laws – Fines

June 22, 2015

By Curtis G. Kimble.

This year was another busy year at the Utah legislature for the HOA world.  Many changes and additions were made to the statutes that govern condominiums, community associations and nonprofit corporations.  As always, refer to the UtahHOALaws app on your iOS device or Android device, or on the web at for the current HOA statutes.

The most significant changes that affect HOAs are laws that:

  • Change how fines must be levied and collected,
  • Require board meetings to be open to the association membership,
  • Change what rental restrictions may be adopted by an association after May 12, 2015,
  • Set forth requirements and procedures for record keeping and making records available to members.


Utah Code 57-8a-208 for community associations (non-condo HOAs), and Utah Code 57-8-37 for condos, provides certain requirements for levying fines.  These laws went into effect May 12, 2015.

Before assessing a fine, the board must give the owner a written warning that:

  1. describes the violation;
  2. states the rule or provision of the association’s governing documents that the owner’s conduct violates;
  3. states that the board may assess fines against the owner if a continuing violation is not cured or if the owner commits similar violations within one year; and
  4. if the violation is a continuing violation, states a time that is not less than 48 hours after the day on which the board gives the owner the written warning by which the lot owner must cure the violation.

Then, a board may assess a fine if:

  1. within one year after the board gives written warning, the owner commits another violation of the same rule or provision identified in the written warning; or
  2. for a continuing violation, the owner does not cure the violation within the time period that is stated in the written warning.

Subsequent fines.  If permitted by the association’s governing documents, after the board assesses a fine against an owner, the board may, without further warning, assess an additional fine against the owner each time the owner:

  1. commits a violation of the same rule or provision within one year after the day on which the board assesses a fine for a violation of the same rule or provision; or
  2. allows a violation to continue for 10 days or longer after the day on which the board assesses the fine (thus, there must be a 10-day period between fines for continuous violations).

Note, as indicated for “subsequent fines,” it is important to have a schedule of fines or fining policy in place in the governing documents (if not in the CC&Rs, then in the rules or separate policy) that allows for levying more than one fine for the same violation without having to repeatedly provide notice first.  Contact us for help with that, if needed.

In my next post, I’ll discuss the new laws on open meetings and rentals.

New 2014 Utah HOA Laws

May 16, 2014

By Curtis G. Kimble.

A few new HOA laws went into effect earlier this week on May 13.  They are not too substantial and shouldn’t significantly alter your way of doing business, but they’re important to know about and comply with.

1.    S.B. 147 deals with rental restrictions.

This bill amended Utah Code Section 57-8-10 and enacted 57-8-10.1 in the Condo Act, and amended 57-8a-209 in the Community Association Act.  It prohibits an association from requiring a homeowner to:

A.  obtain the association’s approval of a prospective renter; or

B.  give the association:
(i) a copy of a rental application;
(ii) a copy of a renter’s or prospective renter’s credit information or credit report;
(iii) a copy of a renter’s or prospective renter’s background check; or
(iv) documentation to verify the renter’s age.

There is an exception if the association’s CC&Rs “prohibits or restricts occupancy of the lots by a certain class of individuals, the association may require a lot owner who owns a rental lot to give the association” those items in B above.  So, for instance, a 55 and older community could require a homeowner to give the association documentation to verify that at least one occupant is 55 or older.

2.    H.B. 26 deals with fines.

This bill amended Utah Code Sections 57-8a-208 and 57-8a-301 in the Community Association Act, and made a minor change in 57-8-37 and 57-8-44 in the Condo Act.

Appealing a Fine.  In the Community Association Act, it limits how and when an owner can appeal a fine that’s levied against the owner.  An owner has 30 days to request a hearing after a fine is levied, and then the owner has up to 6 months to appeal the fine by bringing a court action to challenge the fine.

When the Fine Becomes a Lien.  It further requires that a fine does not become a lien against a lot until, basically, seven months after the fine is levied (because the owner has 30 days to request a hearing before the board and then 180 days after that to bring a court action).   If, after that time, the owner has not sued to challenge the fine in court, the fine becomes a lien against the owner’s lot (if the owner has sued within that time, the fine does not become a lien until the court action is over).    Previously, the owner only had 14 days to request a hearing, an unpaid fine became a lien just like assessments (no 6-7 month waiting period), and the owner was not limited in the time they had to file a lawsuit to challenge the fine.

Condos.  There is nothing much new for condos.  The Condo Act already required that a fine does not become a lien against a unit until, basically, seven months after the fine is levied (because the owner has 30 days to request a hearing before the board and then 180 days after that to bring a court action) and limited an owner to a 6 month period to challenge the fine in court, but it’s now clear that if the owner has sued within that time, the fine does not become a lien until the court action is over.

3.    H.B. 350 deals with removal of board members.

This bill amended Utah Code Section 16-6a-808 in the Nonprofit Corporation Act.  This section provides the requirements to remove a board member (director) from office.  The old section was problematic because (a) it didn’t defer to the association’s bylaws if the bylaws provided a different method for removing a director (the Nonprofit Act should let associations decide for themselves how they want certain things handled and should simply be a default when an association’s bylaws are silent on an issue), and (b) it led to a great deal of confusion because it was not clear how many votes were necessary to remove a director when directors were elected by a plurality vote (where the candidates receiving the most votes win).  Most homeowner associations use plurality voting for electing directors.

The new law states that “unless otherwise provided in the bylaws,” a director may be removed by the vote of a majority of the members entitled to vote.  So, the provisions in your bylaws will govern and apply first and foremost, but if your bylaws are silent, more than 50% of the members have to vote to remove a director in order for that director to be removed from office.

The Utah HOA Law App has been updated with all the new laws and will automatically update on your iphone or Android device when you open the app.  iPad app users will have to update the app itself, which should be available in the App Store in the next week or two.

Ever Wanted to Read a Court’s Perspective on HOA Drama?

June 13, 2013

By Curtis G. Kimble.

Are you interested in seeing how HOA conflicts unfold and are resolved by the Utah Court of Appeals and Supreme Court?  Whether you like the stories of the people and the interesting circumstances, or you like to know the law handed down from Utah’s highest courts regarding HOAs, RKW’s Utah HOA Law app lets you read the HOA case law decided over the years in Utah on your tablet or phone.  The latest update to the app contains select Utah HOA case law, and even includes concise summaries by RKW of certain cases.

One such case from 2002 showed how an agreement between a unit owner and the association to decrease monthly assessments as to only that owner was unenforceable:

Every unit owner in Canyon Road Towers is obligated to pay his or her proportionate share of the common expenses as a monthly assessment. The proportionate share of common expenses is directly tied to the undivided ownership interest that an owner has in the common areas, as required by Utah law for condominiums.  In any condominium project, each unit’s undivided ownership interest is stated in the declaration (CC&Rs).   In negotiating the purchase of a unit, the Johannessens learned that the unit the wanted had a 1.282 percent ownership interest in the common areas, which was higher than the interest assigned to other units (because it was the penthouse unit and had unique features and so forth).  The higher undivided interest of course meant a larger monthly assessment.

The Johannessens got the management committee (the board in a condo) to agree to decrease their assessment, but they did so without a vote of the owners and an amendment to the CC&Rs.  The Johannessens enjoyed the decreased assessment amount for a few years, until something must have happened that woke the management committee up and they began assessing the Johannessens based on their undivided interest.  Of course, the Johannessens sued.

Utah law requires a vote of the unit owners before the ownership interest of any unit owner can be changed.  “A reduction in the monthly assessment paid by any unit owner alters the ownership interest of that unit, and in turn, alters the ownership interest and assessment fees of all other units in the complex.  The facts are undisputed that the Association did not obtain the consent of all the unit owners before it reduced the Johannessens’ monthly assessment,” the court stated.  Thus, the association violated the law when it decreased the assessment for the Johannessens.

Granted, it’s not Harry Potter or Fifty Shades of Grey, and it’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but if you enjoy a court’s perspective on covenants, conflicts, parking, procedure, voting, assessments, and other HOA issues, our app has you covered.

In the case above, the court noted that the association did not obtain the consent of all unit owners because that’s what the law at that time stated.  Today, the Condo Act states that approval of 2/3rds of the unit owners is required, rather than all owners.  This is an example of the fact that a court’s ruling on an issue is often limited to the specific facts of that case and trying to apply the court’s ruling to other facts and circumstances should only be done with the advice of an attorney.  I know it sounds self serving, but really it’s that a little knowledge of the law can be more dangerous than no knowledge if used incorrectly.

One new law, or change to the law, rather, that I haven’t mentioned before is in the statute regarding towing.  Prior to May 14, an HOA with “multifamily dwellings of more than eight units” didn’t have to have signs where parking was subject to towing if parking in that location was prohibited by CC&Rs (or other contract).  That law was changed this year and that exception was deleted.

Now, state law requires that a tow truck operator may not tow without the vehicle owner’s knowledge at “multifamily dwellings of more than eight units” without signage that displays both (1) where parking is subject to towing, and (2) the website that provides access to towing database information, or the name and phone number of the tow truck operator, or the name and phone number of the HOA that authorized the vehicle to be towed.  There is an exception.  Such signs aren’t needed when a vehicle is parked in a location that is prohibited by law or “if it is reasonably apparent that the location is not open to parking” (by a red painted curb, or on a lawn or sidewalk, for instance).

The latest update to the app came out just before the new Utah HOA laws went into effect on May 14.  Make sure to download the update if you haven’t already so you have the current version of the laws.  A future update will contain the new laws that were passed that go into effect in 2014 (July 1, 2014).

Bills That Passed This Legislative Session and How to Comply

March 26, 2013

By Curtis G. Kimble.

The 2013 Utah General Legislative Session has ended and the bills that passed have been finalized in their enrolled form to await signature by the Governor. Which bills passed and which ones didn’t?

Only three of the six bills I discussed in my last post ended up passing the House and the Senate.  They all affect condo and non-condo HOAs in more or less the same way.

SB 64 Homeowner Association Reserve Account Amendments

As I noted before, this law will give the decision back to the board of whether and how to fund a reserve (as most CC&Rs require, and where the decision makers will be subject to fiduciary duties).  Specifically, the law:

  • Specifies that a reserve analysis must include certain things, such as a list of the maintenance items that will require reserve funds,  their remaining useful life, and their cost to repair or replace; an estimate of the contribution to a reserve fund necessary to meet the cost to repair or replace each component; and a reserve funding plan that recommends how the association may fund the annual contribution.
  • Requires an association to provide a summary each year of the reserve analysis to each owner (not just to those at the annual meeting) and a complete copy of the reserve analysis, including any updates, to an owner upon request.
  • Requires the board to include a reserve fund line item in the annual budget in the amount the board determines based on the reserve analysis and based on what “the board determines is prudent under the circumstances” (there is no requirement that the amount be higher than 1$ or even 0$ – not that I recommend that).  This is important because it is almost inevitable that the association will not agree with the amounts recommended by a professional reserve study.  Almost every association feels that their reserve professional has recommended that they set aside more than they really need.  This law allows flexibility so the board can fund reserves in the amount they deem is prudent with all things considered.   However, if the CC&Rs requires a certain level of reserve funding, the CC&Rs will control; this law does not authorize a board to fund reserves lower than what their governing documents might require.
  • Allows the homeowners to veto the reserve fund contribution if they don’t like it (whether too low or too high) by a 51% vote of the owners at a special meeting called within 45 days of when the annual budget is adopted.

Additionally, the law provides for specific enforcement procedures if the association fails to comply with certain of its provisions.  An owner can sue for a court order compelling the association to comply, for $500 or the owner’s actual damages, whichever is greater, other available remedies, and costs and attorney fees.

HB 101 Homeowners Association Amendments

This revision to the statute requiring all HOAs to register as an HOA with the state of Utah merely restates what it said before in a little different way. There is no change in the law’s requirements or implications.

SB 90 Condominium and Community Association Amendments

  • With this new law, an association cannot charge a fee for review and approval of plans for construction or improvement of a unit or lot that exceeds the actual cost of reviewing and approving the plans.
  • The law clarifies what happens when there’s a loss to a unit that initially doesn’t look like it will exceed the association’s deductible but then the loss ends up costing more than the amount of the deductible.  The law says that if the board determines that a covered loss is likely not to exceed the deductible, and until it becomes apparent the loss exceeds the deductible and a claim is submitted to the association’s insurer, the unit owner’s policy is the primary policy for coverage.  So, the unit owner’s policy is primary, but only until it becomes clear that the damage will cost more to repair than the deductible.
  • For commercial condominium projects ( projects with no residential units), the insurance requirements of Utah Code 57-8-43 no longer apply for insurance policies issued or renewed after July 1, 2013.  For mixed-use projects (projects with both commercial and residential units), a commercial unit, including any fixture, improvement or betterment therein and including appurtenant limited common area, does not have to be insured by the association, unless the CC&Rs require it.
  • The Community Association Act is now applicable to any association with at least one residential lot (not just associations made up entirely of residential lots).  So, it will generally apply to mixed-use (commercial/residential) projects (except the insurance provisions were amended to not be applicable to commercial lots, the same as with condominium projects).

The following changes will not take effect until July 1, 2014:

  • The law will now authorize not only condos, but non-condo HOAs as well to access a unit or lot as necessary for maintenance, repair or replacement of common areas or for making an emergency repair, provided that 24 hours’ notice is given, or reasonable notice is given (or attempted) in an emergency.  The association is liable to repair damage it causes to the common areas or to a lot or unit the association uses to access common areas, and it must repair that damage within a reasonable time, except in developer-controlled community associations (where many of the laws in the Community Association Act don’t apply, thanks to legislators favoring developers much more than homeowners (contact your legislator and let them know favoring developers over homeowners isn’t acceptable!)).
  • The law authorizes a unit or lot owner to remove or alter a wall between two units or lots if the owner owns both units/lots, even if the wall is common area, unless restricted by the CC&Rs (most condo CC&Rs do, in fact, restrict this) and unless it would impair the structural integrity, mechanical systems or support of the building, the common areas, or a unit/lot.  The board may require the owner to submit, at the owner’s expense, an engineer’s or architect’s opinion stating that a proposed change will not impair the structural integrity or mechanical systems of the building or either lot, reduce the support or integrity of common areas, or compromise structural components.  The board may require the owner to pay all of the association’s legal and other expenses related to the proposed alteration, as well.  The removal or alteration of the wall does not change the assessment or voting right attributable to either of the units/lots (unless the CC&Rs say so).
  • The law also contains a procedure for the unlikely event that two or more associations want to consolidate or merge together into one association.

While these bills are not actually law until signed by the Governor, there is little chance that the Governor will veto any of them (I will, of course, let you know if he does).   (UPDATE: Each of these bills were signed by the Governor and are now law.)   The laws take effect May 14, 2013, except the ones mentioned above that don’t take effect until July 1, 2014.

As always, please note that none of the above is legal advice and should not be relied on as statements of the requirements of the law applicable to any particular scenario or circumstance.  The statutes themselves should be referred to for their exact and full contents and an attorney consulted with for application of any relevant law to a particular set of facts.

Last Week of Legislative Session: What’s in Store?

March 11, 2013

By Curtis G. Kimble.

It’s the last week of the Utah 2013 general legislative session, which is set to end Thursday, March 14, at midnight, and there are a few HOA bills on the path to becoming law.  Here’s a summary and update on where they are in the process:

HB 335 Condominium Owner Rental Amendments

HB 335 would amend the Condo Act to state a condominium project that recorded its initial declaration before May 12, 2009, would not be able to prohibit or restrict a unit owner’s ability to rent to any greater extent than is described in the declaration that was recorded at the time the unit owner purchased the unit owner’s unit, unless the association obtains the unit owner’s written consent.

This bill is in the House Rules Committee where it has been for a few weeks. This bill will not pass this session.

SB 64 1st sub Homeowner Association Reserve Account Amendments

This substituted version of SB 64 is completely different than the original version (see my prior post).  The most important part of this bill, in my opinion, is that now the decision of whether and how to fund a reserve is back where it belongs. If passed, this version of the law will put that decision back to the board (as most CC&Rs require, and where the decision will be subject to the fiduciary obligations of the decision makers).  This bill would also allow the homeowners to veto the reserve fund contribution  if they don’t like it (whether too low or too high) by a 51% vote of the owners at a special meeting.

Additionally, this bill provides for specific enforcement procedures if the association fails to comply with certain of its provisions.  The association will be required to provide a summary each year of the reserve analysis to each owner (not just at the annual meeting) and a complete copy of the reserve analysis to an owner upon request.  The board also has to include a reserve fund line item in the annual budget in the amount the board determines and the homeowners can veto that determination (as discussed above).

If an association fails to comply, an owner can sue for a court order compelling the association to comply, for $500 or the owner’s actual damages, whichever is greater, other available remedies, and costs and attorney fees.

This bill has passed through the Senate, though the House committee, and is in the House for a vote.  My guess is that this bill will pass, depending on the calendar.

SB 90 1st sub Condominium and Community Association Amendments

SB 90 1st sub changes which associations the Community Association Act applies to.  It currently only applies to wholly residential associations (associations where each member is an owner of a residential lot).  This bill makes the Act applicable to any association with at least one residential lot.  So, it will apply to mixed-use (commercial/residential) projects with at least one residential lot.

The bill states that, unless otherwise provided in the CC&Rs, developers essentially have control of the association for eternity (that is, for seven years after all declarants have ceased to offer lots for sale in the ordinary course of business (compare this with the Condo Act where it’s 3 years after recording the CC&Rs for a typical project)), or 60 days after 75% of the lots that may be created are sold, whichever happens first.

This bill contains changes to the reserve analysis law, as well, which are very similar to SB 64 1st sub (minus the veto and enforcement provisions).

The bill enacts some provisions relating to making changes to adjoining units or lots acquired by same owner, and relating to the consolidation or merger of associations (i.e., a procedure for merging, if two associations wanted to merge or consolidate).

Finally, the bill cleans up the insurance provisions in the Condo Act and Community Association Act and exempts commercial condominiums and lots from its requirements.

This bill has passed the Senate and is now on its way to the House.  Whether it can get through the House in time is anybody’s guess, but my bet is that it will.

SB 274 Condominium Foreclosure Amendments

SB 274 would require a bank or lender to pay a unit or lot’s share of certain common expenses from the time the lender starts the foreclosure process (by filing a notice of default) on a unit or lot.   Many banks start the foreclosure process and then wait for months and sometimes years before completing it, even if the homeowner has given up and long since moved out.  Meanwhile, the association still has to carry applicable insurance and carry out maintenance benefiting the unit or lot.  The bank won’t foreclose because they don’t want to have to start paying assessments.  This bill would address the problem to a small degree by requiring the bank to pay the unit or lots share of “landscaping maintenance in the common areas, water and insurance.”

If this bill gets through the banking lobby, I’d be amazed, but it has passed favorably out of committee and is on the Senate calendar for vote.

HB 101 1st sub Homeowners Association Amendments

The statute requiring all HOAs to register as an HOA with the state of Utah is being merely clarified once again with this bill.   There is no change in its requirements or implications.  It passed the Senate and House.

SB 262 Employment and Housing Antidiscrimination Amendments

SB 262 modifies the Utah Fair Housing Act, which is important for HOAs because the Fair Housing Act prohibits an HOA from discriminating against certain “protected classes” of people in its rules, covenants or practices.  If this bill passes, it would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.  Specifically, the bill states (the underlined language is new language):  “It is a discriminatory housing practice to do any of the following because of a person’s race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, source of income, [or] disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity: . . . deny or make unavailable [any] a dwelling from any person; (b) discriminate against [any] a person in the terms, conditions, or privileges: (i) of the sale or rental of [any] a dwelling; or (ii) in providing facilities or services in connection with the dwelling; . . ..”

This bill passed out of the Senate committee with a favorable recommendation and is on the reading calendar of the Senate (to be voted on).

I’ll let you know which bills pass this session after it ends.

Utah LAC Issues Statement on SB 64 (Reserves)

February 22, 2013

By Curtis G. Kimble.

As many of you may know, the 2013 General Session of the Utah Legislature is in full swing on Capitol Hill.  A few bills enacting or amending HOA laws are in the works and I’ll be summarizing and commenting on those over the next couple of weeks.

As to one such bill, SB 64, CAI’s Utah Legislative Action Committee issued a position statement today coming down quite aggressively against it.  SB 64 amends the reserve funding requirements of Utah Code Sections 57-8-7.5 and 57-8a-211 and, if passed, will require an association to begin funding the reserve fund in the manner and amount determined by the vote of the owners within 90 days after the vote, and to file a certificate of compliance with the Department of Commerce within 30 days of starting to fund a reserve fund.  It also requires that if an association does not file a certificate of compliance within the required 30 days, the association may not levy a special assessment until it files a certificate of compliance.  View SB 64 here.  View the position statement here (I am not a member of ULAC and their position is not necessarily mine, nor mine theirs).

UPDATE March 1: view the substitute bill SB 64 here and a comparison of the changes to the original SB 64 here.

The original requirement of this law requiring the decision of whether to fund a reserve account to be made by a majority of those owners who happen to show up at the annual meeting, is one that I’ve always been opposed to for various reasons, not the least of which is that it unconstitutionally interferes with the obligation contained almost universally in preexisting HOA contracts (CC&Rs) that the board establish a reasonable reserve.  For reasons similar to those contained in the ULAC position statement, I am opposed to SB 64, as well.

If you have an opinion one way or the other on pending legislation, don’t be afraid to voice it to your representatives in the Legislature.  Follow this link to identify who they are and contact them: Utah State District Maps

%d bloggers like this: