New 2025 HOA Laws and What They Mean For Your HOA

May 7, 2025

The Utah general legislative session for 2025 was January – March 2025.  All of the following laws go into effect May 7, 2025.

HOA Registry – Annual Renewal Required

House Bill 217 (2025) requires a homeowner association to renew its registration with the Utah HOA Registry annually, instead of just when there is a change in its information.  So, previously, an association had to register with the HOA Registry and then had to update its information within 90 days every time there was a change, such as when a board member changed.  Now, an association must renew its registration each year and pay an annual fee set by the Department of Commerce (likely around $90), and it must update its information within 90 days every time there is a change.  See Utah Code § 57-8a-105 or 57-8-13.1, as applicable

Rules

A rule is a restriction that governs conduct or property and that is adopted by a board, rather than by a vote of the owners, and does not include restrictions in the CC&Rs (declaration) or bylaws.

House Bill 217 (2025) says a rule:

  • can’t prohibit an owner from displaying a flag in a window of a condominium unit, or on a lot, a dwelling exterior or the front yard of a dwelling, regardless if the association owns the yard.  But, a rule may regulate the size of flags and the time, place and manner a flag is displayed.  The bill does not define “flag.”  A rule can’t regulate the content or design criteria of a flag, but may restrict a flag that contains obscene, profane, or commercial content.  
  • can’t prohibit an owner from parking in the owner’s driveway, if otherwise legal, unless it’s a commercial vehicle as defined in Section 72-9-102, or a motor home as defined in Section 13-20-2, or a travel trailer, camping trailer, or fifth wheel trailer.  Inoperable vehicles can be prohibited from a driveway and parking in a garage may be required before parking elsewhere.
  • can’t regulate parking on a public street or the use of a public street.
  • can’t restrict a resident from installing, displaying or storing an item that is not visible to someone standing outside the unit or lot.
  • can’t restrict an owner from hiring a contractor solely because the contractor is not on a preferred vendor list or doesn’t have a license, unless a license is required by law.
  • can’t impose a late fee of more than the greater of 10% of the assessment amount or $50, or interest of more than 1.5% per month (18% per annum) for late assessment payments.  Current law states that if the governing documents don’t impose interest on an unpaid assessment, interest accrues at 10% per annum.  (See § 57-8a-301 or 57-8-44).  HB 217 says a board can establish a late fee and interest for late payments by rule.  So, if the CC&Rs don’t impose a late fee or interest, and the association would like to charge a higher interest rate than the default 10%, the board can adopt a rule to do so.  If a late fee or interest are imposed by rule (rather than by the CC&Rs or other governing document that is not adopted by the board), the late fee and interest are capped at those amounts, and before imposing the late fee, the board must formally adopt the fee by rule (and follow any required procedures to adopt a rule) and provide a copy to each owner.  Additionally, in condos, if the board relies on the statute (rather than the CC&Rs) for authority to impose a payment, fee or charge for the use, rental, or operation of the common areas or a service provided to an owner, the fee must be formally adopted by rule and provided to each owner.  Utah Code § 57-8a-201 & 57-8-8.1(5).

See Utah Code § 57-8a-218 or 57-8-8.1.

Additionally, in community associations, a rule

  • can’t prohibit a back yard vegetable garden if the association doesn’t own or maintain the back yard, but it can regulate the vegetable garden to some degree that doesn’t significantly increase the cost or significantly decrease the efficiency of the garden.
  • can’t prohibit a basketball standard on individually-owned property that abuts a public street.

See Utah Code § 57-8a-218

Rentals

Senate Bill 201 (2025) modfies Utah Code § 57-8a-209 and 57-8-10.1 to say:

  • A rule may establish a minimum lease term of six months or less.
  • If a rule requires owners to pay a fee to rent their unit:
    • Before charging the fee, (1) a board meeting must be held to discuss and allow owners to comment on the administrative expenses that the association intends to cover with the fee, and the circumstances that require imposing or increasing the fee; (2) at the board meeting, the board must approve the fee by a majority vote; (2) the association must give notice of the board meeting to every owner 15 days before the meeting. 
    • Within 30 days of adopting the fee, the association must give notice to each owner impacted by the fee describing the “new administrative expenses” that the association intends to cover with the fee, and the circumstances that require imposing or increasing the fee.  An owner may contest the fee if the association doesn’t give the notice.
    • The same required exemptions from the rental restrictions apply to the fee.
    • The fee can only be charged once every 12 months.
    • By way of reminder, the existing law says an association can only charge an owner a fee up to $200 to rent a unit if the association incurs additional administrative expenses directly related to the rental and if at least 35% of the units are allowed to be rented.
  • An owner of a rental may designate in writing a primary contact whom the association may communicate with as if they are the owner.  If an owner designates a primary contact, the association must give the owner written notice that confirms the records have been changed to identify the primary contact.

Transfer Fees (inluding reinvestment fees)

House Bill 217 (2025) amends the transfer fee statute that applies to HOAs, but it should not change anything for an HOA that has already properly adopted a transfer fee (a.k.a. a reinvestment fee).  In short, if the fee is used to pay expenses related to the transfer of the property, the fee does not need to be approved by a vote of the owners or contained in the CC&Rs.  If the fee simply goes into the general coffers of the association, the fee must be authorized in the CC&Rs (or similar document approved by a vote of the owners).

The statue separates and defines those two types of fees:

  • An “association transfer fee” is a fee charged by an association upon transfer of a unit or lot relating to the sale of the unit or lot that is used to pay expenses related to the transfer.
  • A “reinvestment fee” is a fee imposed, directly or indirectly, by an association upon a buyer or seller upon transfer of a unit or lot, and that is dedicated to benefiting the common areas (including payment for association expenses).

In order to charge an “association transfer fee,” approval of the owners is not required.  In order to charge a “reinvestment fee” after May 6, 2025, the fee must be authorized in the declaration (CC&Rs) or a separately recorded covenant and must be approved by a majority of the voting interests or a higher percentage if required in the governing documents.  The separately-recorded notice of the fee is still required.  The amount of the fee must be set in accordance with the CC&Rs or covenant.  The owners may disapprove a reinvestment fee by following a procedure specified in the statute. 

See Utah Code § 57-1-46.

HOA Ombudsman

House Bill 217 (2025) establishes the Office of the Homeowners’ Association Ombudsman, which will issue advisory opinions regarding compliance by an association or owner with statutes applicable to associations and owners.  If an owner or an association are involved in a dispute relating to a violation of a state statute, the owner or association may request an advisory opinion on the issue if: (1) a lawsuit has not yet been filed (or binding arbitration begun), (2) no more than one year has passed since the requester knew or should have known about the act or issue that is the subject of the dispute, (3) the requester has exhausted all existing procedures in the governing documents, other than binding arbitration or a lawsuit, and (4) a $150 filing fee is paid.

The Ombudsman’s office will only issue an advisory opinion when there is an active dispute over an issue between two or more parties and only for issues relating to a violation of a state statute.  The office will not review contract disputes or interpret the governing documents of an association.

An advisory opinion issued by the Ombudsman is not binding on any party and is not admissible as evidence in a dispute, except that if the issue that is the subject of the advisory opinion is then litigated in court and the court rules in favor of the same party as the advisory opinion, the court may award the winning party: (1) attorney fees and court costs from the date of the advisory opinion, and (2) if the court finds that the other party knowingly and intentionally violated the law at issue, a penalty of $250 for each day beginning the later of: (i) 30 days after the advisory opinion is given, or (ii) the day the action is filed in court.

See Utah Code Title 13, Ch. 79, Part 1.

Records

House Bill 86 (2025):

  • increased the penalty that an owner may request a court to require an association to pay if the association fails to make documents available to the owner as required by law or its governing documents from $500 to $1000 (or actual damage, whichever is greater);
  • increased the hourly rate an association can charge an owner for an employee’s or agent’s time making copies in response to a records request by the owner from $15 to $20; and
  • changed whether the winning party in a records request lawsuit will be granted the attorney fees and costs they incur (meaning that the losing party in the lawsuit is required to pay the winner’s attorney fees and costs).  Previously, a court was required to award the prevailing party those fees and costs, but now the law says the court may do so. So now it’s up to the court whether to award those fees and costs. So, for instance, if the association wins the suit, the court may require the owner to pay the association’s attorney fees and costs. See Utah Code Sections 57-8a-227(6) or 57-8-17(6). Note, a different subsection of the statute, subsection (5), says an association is required to pay attorney fees and costs incurred by an owner in obtaining the documents if the association fails to comply with the statute when responding to the request. So, if a court finds an association did comply with the statute, the association does not have to pay those attorney fees and costs. But, if a court finds the association didn’t comply with the statute, the association is required to pay those fees and costs under subsections 57-8a-227(5) or 57-8-17(5). So, the bill changed whether a court is required to award attorney fees and costs to the winning party (which could be the association or the owner), but not whether an association that fails to follow the statute when responding to a records request must pay the attorney fees and costs an owner incurs trying to obtain the records.

House Bill 217 (2025):

  • added two financial statements to the list of records an association must keep and make available to owners who request them, a profit and loss statement and balance sheet for the previous three fiscal years;
  • specifies that an associaition must comply with a request for records by an owner under 57-8a-227(3) within two weeks after the day the association receives the request.  Previously, there was no specific time period for some records.  The records that are required to be always available haven’t changed; 
  • says an association can’t charge for the cost of electronic transmission of documents requested by an owner;
  • allows an association to comply with a request by posting the documents to the association’s website or online owner portal.

See Utah Code § 57-8a-227 or 57-8-17.

Architectural Review

House Bill 217 (2025) requires that if an association denies architectural plans, the association must give written notice to the owner specifying: 

  • each governing document provision that the association relied on when denying the plan, and
  • the specific aspect of the proposed plan that does not conform to that governing document provision.

Additionally, in community associations, an association may not restrict or deny a plan due to the plan’s inclusion of a fire-resistant material in an area with heightened risk of wildfire.  “Fire-resistant material” means a material designed and tested to resist ignition, slow the spread of fire, or withstand high temperatures, including: (i) Class A roofing; (ii) non-combustible siding; (iii) a fiber cement product; (iv) metal roofing; or (v) fire-rated gypsum board.

See Utah Code § 57-8a-109 or 57-8-6.7

Water

Senate Bill 201 finishes a sentence in the existing Community Association Act that just sort of trailed off and created a rather large ambiguity about whether an association could require grass on a lot.  For some reason, last year the statute was changed from saying, “An association may not require a property owner to install or keep in place lawn or turf in an area with a width less than eight feet,” to deleting the last seven words and simply saying, “An association may not require a lot owner to install or keep in place lawn or turf in an area.”  SB 201 adds those words “less than eight feet wide” back in.  So, now it reads, “Except where reasonably necessary for erosion control, an association may not require a lot owner to install or keep in place lawn or turf in an area less than eight feet wide.”

See Utah Code § 57-8a-231 or 57-8-8.1.

Amendment of Declaration

House Bill 217 (2025) imposes a minimum number of owners that must approve an amendment to the CC&Rs (declaration), as well as a minimum quorum requirement, but it doesn’t apply if your documents require a higher number of owners.  The law only applies after the period of administrative control by the developer.

The bill establishes that the minimum number of owners that must participate in a vote to amend the declaration (the quorum requirement) is 51%, or a higher percentage if required in the CC&Rs.  So, in the rare instance that an association’s CC&Rs say the CC&Rs can be amended where a quorum of less than 51% of the owners participate, this statute overrides that requirement and makes it inapplicable.  If the CC&Rs say the CC&Rs can be amended with a quorum that is more than 51% of the owners, this statute has no effect.  For instance, if the CC&Rs require a quorum of 55% of the owners, then the 55% quorum is still required. 

Then, as to the vote itself, the bill establishes that the minimum number of votes that can approve an amendment to the declaration is a majority vote of the voters where at least 51% of the owners participate. “Voters” means owners that actually cast a vote. 

For instance, if the CC&Rs require approval of a majority of voters that vote in a proceeding where at least 30% of the owners participate, the association has 150 owners, 45 owners are present and cast a vote, and 23 vote in favor of amending, that would be sufficient under the CC&Rs to amend before this law.  Now, at least 77 owners must be present (51% of 150) and if 70 of those cast a vote, 35 must vote in favor (a majority of 70).

If the CC&Rs require a higher threshold than this statute, the statute has no effect.  For instance, if the CC&Rs require approval of 60% of the owners and the association has 150 owners, at least 90 affirmative votes (60% of 150) are needed for the amendment to pass (and it doesn’t otherwise matter how many owners vote).

Finally, the bill makes clear that a board alone cannot amend CC&Rs.

Key Point:  If your CC&Rs require approval of an amendment to the CC&Rs by a majority vote of the voters or more, and that a quorum of at least 51% of the voting interests must participate, this statute has no effect for your community.

See Utah Code § 57-8a-104 or 57-8-39.

Solar

House Bill 119 (2025) lowers the percentage of owners required to approve a change to CC&Rs that prohibit solar installations on a lot with a detached dwelling from “greater than 67%” to “at least 51%.”  Also, an association may not prohibit solar installations unless at least 67% of the owners approve the prohibition in an amendment to the CC&Rs (this was changed from “greater than 67%” to “at least 67%”).

Developer

Developer Duties

In 2009, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that a developer owes certain fiduciary duties to an association until the developer relinquishes control of the association.  Those fiduciary duties have now been codified into Utah Code § 57-8a-502 by House Bill 217 (2025) for community associations.

During the period of administrative control of an association, the developer must:

  • use reasonable care and prudence in managing and maintaining the common areas;
  • establish a sound fiscal basis for the association by imposing and collecting assessments and establishing reserves for the maintenance and replacement of common areas;
  • for a service that the association is or will be obligated to provide, disclose to the owners the amount of money the declarant provides for or subsidizes for that service;
  • maintain records and account for the financial affairs of the association from the association’s inception;
  • comply with and enforce the terms of the declaration, including design controls, land-use restrictions, and the payment of assessments; and
  • disclose to the owners all material facts and circumstances affecting:
    (1) the condition of the property that the association is responsible for maintaining, and
    (2) the financial condition of the association, including the interest of the developer and the developer’s affiliates in any contract, lease, or other agreement entered into by the association.

Developer Control Period

Additionally, in community associations, the default for when the period of administrative control terminates is changed to 60 days after the day on which 80% of the lots that may be created in the association are conveyed to owners (unless otherwise stated in the CC&Rs).  Regardless of what the CC&Rs say, the period of administrative control ends on the earlier of: (a) when the developer no longer owns any lot and no longer possesses any development right, or (b) seven years after the day on which the developer has stopped offering lots, including lots that may be created, for sale in the ordinary course of business.

While the developer is still in control of the association, the developer can’t use money paid by homeowners to fight a lawsuit that homeowners have filed against them.

Finally, a developer may not sell any of the common areas during the period of administrative control, except in the same way an association may as provided in Section 10-9a-606 or 17-27a-606, or as allowed by the Condo Act.

See Utah Code §§ 57-8a-502, 57-8a-229, 57-8-58, 57-8a-232 and 57-8-32.

Finally, Senate Bill 201 requires that, in order to sue a developer for defective construction, a condo unit owner must first provide notice to the developer describing the defective construction and requesting repairs and then allow nine months for the repairs to be made.  See Utah Code § 78B-4-513.

How the new laws affect your community and what you need to do to comply with the new laws

  • Make sure the association always has a profit and loss statement and balance sheet for the previous three fiscal years.
  • Review your rules and revise as necessary if the rules:
    • prohibit flags,
    • prohibit an owner from parking in the owner’s driveway,
    • regulate parking on a public street or the use of a public street,
    • restrict items that are not visible to someone standing outside a unit or lot,
    • require using a contractor from a preferred vendor list or that has a license, unless a license is required by law,
    • restrict vegetable gardens in the backyard of property the association doesn’t own or maintain,
    • prohibit a basketball standard on individuallly-owned property that abuts a public street.
  • If a late fee and interest aren’t authorized in the CC&Rs and the board imposes a late fee and interest, ensure they don’t exceed the cap and ensure the late fee is formally adopted in a rule with a copy provided to each owner.  Additionally, for condos, any fee charged for the use, rental, or operation of the common areas and any fee charged for a service provided to a unit owner must be included in a rule provided to each owner.
  • Ensure your association renews its registration with the HOA Registry annually now, instead of just after changes.
  • If the association charges a fee to owners of rental units, make sure to follow the process outlined above.
  • If the association charges a transfer fee (a.k.a. reinvestment fee) that benefits the association generally (e.g., goes into the general fund or reserve fund), rather than paying expenses associated with transferring title to a lot or unit, ensure the fee is authorized in a recorded covenant (such as the CC&Rs) approved by at least a majority of the voting interests of the owners.
  • Don’t reject an architectural review plan submitted by an owner without notifying the owner of the specific governing document provisions relied on when denying the plan and the specific aspect of the proposed plan that does not conform to those governing document provisions.
  • If you are a community association, don’t refuse to allow fire-resistant materials that are proposed in an architectural plan.

Leave a Comment » | Condo, Enforcement, HOA Finances, New Condo Laws, New HOA Laws, New Non-Condo HOA Laws, Non-Condo HOA | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Curtis G. Kimble

2018 Utah Legislative Session

May 8, 2018

Happy Laws Go Into Effect Day! (okay, I’m sure there’s a better name for that).  Today, May 8, the HOA laws that were enacted this year go into effect.  Specifically, those laws:

  • include an amendment to the law regarding HOA records,
  • include an amendment to the law regarding HOA reserve fund money,
  • regulate how HOAs keep association funds,
  • clean up a couple of the required exceptions to certain rental restrictions,
  • codify that a management committee acts for an association, and
  • enacts provisions regarding a management committee that imposes sanctions or pursues legal action.

HOA Records

A change to the law this year requires an HOA to make certain documents available to homeowners free of charge, via the association’s website or at the association’s address, requires a homeowner to include certain information in a written request for records, establishes a penalty for the failure of an association to fulfill a request,  and provides that an association is not liable for erroneous documents identified or produced in good faith.

The law already required associations to keep certain records and make them available to homeowners who request them.  Now, the law also requires all associations to keep and make available to homeowners a copy of the association’s: (1) declaration and bylaws, (2) most recent approved minutes, and (3) most recent budget and financial statement.  Associations are required to make those documents available to owners, free of charge, through the association website, or, if the association does not have an active website, it must make physical copies of the documents available to owners during regular business hours at the association’s address registered with the Department of Commerce’s Utah HOA Registry.

If a homeowner wishes to view or copy other association records, then in a written request to the association, the homeowner must include certain information, including how the owner wishes to inspect or to copy the documents.  The owner may elect: (1) that the association or a third party duplicating service make the copies or electronic scans of the requested documents, or (2) that the owner be allowed to bring any necessary imaging equipment to the place of inspection and make copies or electronic scans of the documents while inspecting the documents, or (3) that the association email the requested documents to an email address provided in the request.

If an association produces the copies or electronic scans, the owner must pay the association the reasonable cost of the copies or electronic scans and for time spent meeting with the owner, which may not exceed the actual cost that the association paid to a recognized third party duplicating service to make the copies or electronic scans, or 10 cents per page and $15 per hour for the association employee’s, manager’s, or other agent’s time.

In addition to the penalties already in place for failure by an association to comply with this law, the new law imposes the additional penalty that an association must pay $25 per day for as long as the owner’s records request continues unfulfilled, beginning on the sixth day after a proper written request was made.

Finally, the new law states that an association is not liable for identifying or providing a document in error, if the association identified or provided the erroneous document in good faith.

See Utah Code Section 57-8-17 (condominiums) and Utah Code Section 57-8a-227 (non-condo HOAs).

Reserve Fund Money

A change goes into effect today to the law that prohibited an association from using money in a reserve fund for a purpose other than the purpose for which the reserve fund was established.  Effective today, an association may use money in a reserve fund for a purpose other than the purpose for which the reserve fund was established if a majority of association members vote to approve the use of reserve fund money for that purpose.

See Utah Code Section 57-8-60 (condominiums) and Utah Code Section 57-8a-211 (non-condo HOAs).

Association Funds

Starting today, associations are required to keep all of the association’s funds in an account in the name of the association, and an association may not commingle the association’s funds with the funds of any other person or entity.

See Utah Code Section 57-8-7.5 (condominiums) and Utah Code Section 57-8a-230 (non-condo HOAs).

Exceptions to Certain Rental Restrictions

Utah law requires certain exceptions when an association prohibits rentals or restricts the number and term of rentals in the association.  See Utah Code Section 57-8-10.1 (condominiums) and Utah Code Section 57-8a-209 (non-condo HOAs).

A couple of those exceptions were clarified this year.  The law use to say an owner “whose employer has relocated the owner for no less than two years” is exempt from the prohibition or restriction on the number and term of rentals.  This made little sense as a hardship-type exception.  A temporary, short-term job relocation is more likely to cause a hardship.  Long-term relocations are less in need of a hardship-exception because it’s less of a hardship to have to sell a home for a long-term relocation than a short-term relocation.  So, the statute now states an owner “whose employer has relocated the lot owner for two years or less” is exempt from the prohibition or restriction on the number and term of rentals.

Additionally, the new law clarifies that the exemption for owners who have a rental before a prohibition or restriction on the number and term of rentals is adopted terminates when the home is sold or otherwise conveyed (and defines what constitutes such a conveyance).

Miscellaneous

A couple of minor changes were passed that simply codify what was basically already true, at common law or otherwise.  Utah Code Section 57-8-59 states that a management committee acts in all instances on behalf of the association (except as otherwise stated in the association’s governing documents).  And Utah Code Section 57-8-10.7, in the Condo Act, was adopted to match a parallel section in the Community Association Act.  It states that a management committee must use its reasonable judgment to determine whether to exercise the association’s powers to impose sanctions or pursue legal action for a violation of the governing documents, and it specifies certain circumstances under which an association may not be required to take enforcement action.  And, finally, Utah Code Section 57-8a-212.5, in the Community Association Act, was adopted to match a parallel section in the Condo Act.  It states that owners must comply with the governing documents and enforcement may be sought by an association or an aggrieved owner through an action to recover money for damages, or injunctive relief, or both.

Contact Kimble Law for assistance with any of the issues addressed in these new laws, or for any association issues.

2 Comments | Enforcement, HOA Finances, New Condo Laws, New HOA Laws, New Non-Condo HOA Laws, Reserves | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Curtis G. Kimble

An HOA Loan, a Viable Option for Funding an Association Project?

May 7, 2013

By Curtis G. Kimble.

Richards, Kimble and Winn held a brief seminar with Alan Seilhammer, Premier Association Lending, the other night where Alan discussed with many board members and managers the process of obtaining an HOA specific loan.  An HOA loan is not the answer to all of an association’s problems, it isn’t even the best choice in many cases, but it can be the best choice in certain situations.  It’s an important tool in any association’s financial toolbox.  Here’s a brief synopsis of Alan’s PowerPoint and of our discussion:

There are three unalterable truths when it comes to HOA maintenance:

1.  The project will not go away. Picture1

2.  The project will not get cheaper.

3.  Whether by reserves, special assessment or a loan, the money comes from the owners.

Because of these truths, when property condition reports and reserve studies uncover problems which require major capital expenditures, it’s important to deal with them. At the outset of any major maintenance project, the scope of the project must be defined, the options available and priorities must be known and understood (is insurance available, ramifications of not addressing entire project, etc.), legal issues must be known or anticipated, and funding options must be evaluated.  An evaluation of project funding options depends upon the project budget, project schedule, governing documents, legal review, and current cash reserves, among other things.

  • Utilize association’s reserves.
  • Special assessment.
  • Loan.

What Can be Funded?

1. Most anything you can imagine. Funding tools have become rather sophisticated.

a.  Capital maintenance projects are most common.
b.  Construction defects are largely the same but are thought of differently.
c.  Litigation Expenses: Construct defect, unconscionable leases.
d.  Real estate purchases: Units, contiguous property.
e.  Buy out of land leases.
f.  Emergency line of credit.
g.  Operating line of credit for a business need.

2. Operating Expenses are most often not fundable

a.  An association with an operating deficit needs to solve that problem internally
b.  Insurance premiums can be funded within the fiscal year: 10 months
c.  Emergency operating needs depending on the circumstance.

Why You Do Not Want to Wait Until Later:

  • Multi-family construction costs increased nationally 37.4% between 2008 and 2012.
  • Construction costs are forecast to increase 5.5% in 2013.
  • Association investments currently yield less than 1%.
  • Loan Rates are about 4.0% – 4.75% & holding steady.

Picture2

What is Used For Collateral?

1.  Assignment of association’s regular and special assessments. Generally an association’s regular deposits should not be posted as collateral since the association needs access to its liquidity.

2.  There is no lien or mortgage on the common area or property of the association or any unit (unless purchasing real estate as part of the transaction).

General Loan Parameters:

1.  Term. 1 to 15 years.
2.  Points. A fee of .5% to 1% (can often be negotiated away).
3.  Rate. Interest you pay on the loan. Fixed and variable interest rate programs available.
4.  No prepayment penalties for paying before the term ends.  Because of this, there is inherent flexibility allowing the association to payoff the loan when it suits them.  HOA loans are often for a 10 year term, but most are paid off after around 6 years.
5.  Typical Structure. Initially a “non-revolving” line of credit during construction phase of 6 months to 1 year. Converts to a variable or fixed rate term when construction is completed.
6.  Interest rate may be reduced if association maintains its other accounts with the bank.

Loan Parameters to Avoid:

1.  Pre-payment penalties of any kind.
2.  Interest rates that are hard to understand (SWAP rate, etc.).
3.  Yield maintenance fee.
4.  Changed financial statement requirements.
5.  Approval of contractors.
6.  Control of deposit accounts or a requirement that operating accounts are to be held at the bank.
7.  Balloon payments.
8.  Payable on demand.
9.  Loan default if delinquencies are over some number (know all the events of default).
10.  A debt coverage ratio.

There’s no question a reserve fund is the funding option of choice for major maintenance projects.  But when that’s not an option, a special assessment could be inevitable.  Unfortunately, special assessments are fraught with risks and are fundamentally unfair because only the owners at a specific date have to pay for improvements that benefited past and future owners.  A bank loan is definitely a viable option for funding a project.  While evaluating your possible maintenance project funding sources, make sure you understand the association’s options, including the possibility of a bank loan.

Leave a Comment » | HOA Finances | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by Curtis G. Kimble

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.

1 Comment | Governance, Insurance, New Condo Laws, New HOA Laws, New Non-Condo HOA Laws, Reserves | Tagged: | Permalink
Posted by Curtis G. Kimble

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

2 Comments | HOA Finances, New HOA Laws, Reserves | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Curtis G. Kimble

5 Ways to Reduce Assessment Delinquencies

January 7, 2013

By Curtis G. Kimble.

Our law firm helps many HOA boards and managers collect past-due assessments (dues) from members.  Collecting on delinquencies is not easy work in any event, but it can inadvertently be made even more difficult than necessary by a manager or board.  Here are 5 ways to help ensure delinquencies can be collected in a timely manner.

1.  Have a collection policy in place and let your owners know about it.  A collection policy should explain due dates, when late charges are incurred, the interest rate on late amounts, returned check charges, and what actions will be taken on delinquent accounts and when.  At the same time, a collection policy should be somewhat flexible, rather than taking a hardline approach requiring a series of actions taken at set-in-stone dates.  Seek the advice of the association’s attorney because many laws and the association’s governing documents must be taken into consideration.  Finally, follow all the steps in the policy.

2.  Ensure the names and addresses of owners are accurate and up to date.  Sure, it’s generally the job of the owner to ensure the association has an accurate mailing address.  But, a board can avoid some headache by doing what they can to ensure accurate contact information.  Try to ensure actual contact with an owner is made before sending their account to collection.  Be aware of returned mail and vacant properties.  The primary complaints we see from owners are, “I’ve never heard anything from the association” and “if they had just knocked on my door and talked to me about it.”

It’s not a volunteer board member’s job to go knocking on doors to collect money, rather, it’s the individual owner’s duty to make sure their debts are paid.  Additionally, casual collection procedures that embarrass owners should be avoided.  But, communication is key, and communication can’t occur without accurate owner information.

3.  Implement effective procedures that will identify accounting errors.  Every HOA must use good, basic accounting practices.  I’m not saying every small association must strictly use GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles), which is a codification of how CPA firms and large corporations prepare and present their business income and expense, assets and liabilities on their financial statements.  But using a homemade accounting system on a spreadsheet or hand-written ledger can be a recipe for a mess and can significantly delay proper collection remedies.

Ideally, use bookkeeping software that will give you reasonable reports of every individual property account with a history of charges, payments, and a running balance.  Make notes that identify payments by check numbers and sender’s identity.  Identify charges to the individual’s account by item or purpose.  Be able to provide an accounting that will clarify the what and why of an individual’s balance at any given time.  When switching accounting systems or switching property managers, make sure to have a means or require a means of providing the history for any balance forward carried into the new system.

4.  Take action when assessments remain unpaid.  The association has rights that should be preserved early on with a delinquent account.  Follow the association’s collection policy.  Ensure letters are sent to the owner, a lien is filed against the property, and additional remedies are being pursued, as appropriate.  The more time passes, the harder it will be to collect.

5.  Take collection action uniformly and consistently with all owners who are delinquent.  Do not let personality conflicts or personal relationships factor into the actions taken on a delinquent account.  Treat all owners equally and fairly.

Associations that consistently follow good and effective practices, such as the ones listed above, have more success obtaining the cooperation of the owners and collecting delinquent assessments without having to resort to extreme legal measures.  Contact us if you’d like assistance implementing any of these practices or to help your association collect on delinquencies.

1 Comment | Governance, HOA Finances | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Curtis G. Kimble

Exposing Common Myths in HOA Operations

October 25, 2012

By Curtis G. Kimble.

We frequently hear about and see associations acting on myths that seem to persist despite being clearly incorrect. Here are some of those myths and misunderstandings and the truth behind them:

1. An association can deny a request of a members to view the records of the association.

False.  An association member is generally entitled to view and inspect the records of the association upon making a proper request (with limited exceptions, such as for confidential or privileged records).  An association must either maintain its records in written form or in another form capable of conversion into written form within a reasonable time.  Every association should have a records retention policy to ensure the association keeps records for the proper period of time, to provide for the proper disposal of records, and to assist in making and complying with records requests.

2.  An association can require pre-approval for, or prohibit, small satellite dishes installed on owners’ porches, balconies and patios.

False, except  an owner (or installer) cannot drill through an exterior wall to install the dish.

The FCC has adopted a rule applicable to “Over-the-Air-Reception Devices” (“OTARD”).  OTARD prohibits HOA restrictions that impair the installation, maintenance or use of small satellite dishes in areas that are within the exclusive use or control of the dish user (such as limited common area).

The rule prohibits restrictions as to such areas that:  (1) unreasonably delay or prevent installation, maintenance or use;  (2) unreasonably increase the cost of installation, maintenance or use; or (3) preclude reception of an acceptable quality signal.

The rule does not apply to common areas (such as the roofs and exterior walls of a condominium building).  It only applies to areas within the exclusive use or control of the dish user.  So, an association can certainly restrict or prohibit satellite dishes from being installed on common area roofs and walls.  Additionally, the association can regulate dishes on limited common area to some degree.

Contact us for assistance adopting a satellite dish and antenna installation policy if you don’t already have one in place.

3. A director must abstain from voting on matters that the director has a conflict of interest in.

False.  As long as the underlying transaction being voted on is fair to the association, a director can have a conflict and still vote.  (Utah Code Sec. 16-6a-825).  However, it is highly discouraged that the director vote for several reasons, not the least of which is the difficulty in establishing that a transaction is fair and defining exactly what fair is.  If the conflicted director simply abstains from voting after fully disclosing to the board the material facts as to the conflicting interest transaction, then most conflict of interest problems will be cured.

4.  The association president has authority to make decisions and take actions on behalf of the association.

False, except to the extent the president is authorized by the board or by the bylaws to make decisions and take actions.  All powers of an association must be exercised by or under the authority of the the board and the business and affairs of the association must be managed under the direction of the board.  (Utah Code Sec. 16-6a-801).  The president has no independent authority to exercise the powers of the association or manage the business and affairs of the association.

The bylaws may authorize a person to exercise some or all of the powers that would otherwise be exercised by the board.  (Utah Code Sec. 16-6a-801).  And, the board can delegate certain authority of the board to a person (including the president).  (Utah Code Sec. 16-6a-819).  But, otherwise, the president and any other officer have no more authority than any member of the association.  It’s very important a board clearly authorize a president to perform the actions and make the decisions they expect him or her to carry out.  This authorization should be in a board resolution or reflected in the minutes of a board meeting.

5.  A board can adopt a rule about any issue they deem necessary.

False.  The board must have authority to restrict or regulate the specific subject of the rule.  This authority usually comes from the law or from the CC&Rs.  A general provision in the CC&Rs granting the right to adopt rules does not give a board the unfettered authority to restrict rights of individual owners, especially as to units or lots.  On the other hand, a board will usually have authority to adopt reasonable rules to govern use of the common property, to govern the use of individually owned property to protect the common property, and to protect the members’ use and enjoyment of their own property and the common property from interference caused by use of other individually owned lots or units.

An association should have a qualified attorney review a proposed rule before it is adopted, and have the attorney review existing rules periodically to ensure the rules are authorized under the governing documents and the law and that they don’t open the association to discrimination claims or present other problems.

6. The law regarding rental restrictions in the Condo Act applies to all condo projects, or the  law regarding rental restrictions in the Community Association Act applies to all community associations.

False.   Those laws don’t apply to the vast majority of associations out there.  Each of those laws only apply to associations where the original declaration is recorded after May 12, 2009.  So, if the community is older than 2009 (if the original CC&Rs were recorded before May 12, 2009), the rental restriction requirements in those two statutes do not apply to that association.

UPDATE 2015:  The two referenced laws (Utah Code 57-8-10.1 for condos, and 57-8a-209 for non-condos) apply to all HOAs who, on or after May 12, 2015, (1) adopt a rental restriction or prohibition, or (2) amend an existing rental restriction or prohibition.

7. The Utah reserve analysis law requires an association to have reserves.

False.  There is no state or federal law requiring a Utah homeowners association to have a reserve fund.  In fact, the law specifically requires an association to provide an opportunity for homeowners to vote on whether to fund a reserve fund.  Of course, many lenders, as well as FHA, require reserves.

1 Comment | Governance, Reserves | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Curtis G. Kimble

Don’t Forget to Conduct a Reserve Analysis by July 1!

June 12, 2012

By Curtis G. Kimble.

The deadline for all HOA and condominium boards in Utah to conduct a “reserve analysis” is fast approaching.  By July 1, every  board (except developer-controlled boards) needs to obtain or perform a reserve analysis if no reserve analysis has been conducted since March 1, 2008.

A reserve analysis is an analysis to determine:

(a)     the need for a reserve fund to accumulate money to cover the cost of repairing, replacing, and restoring common areas and facilities that have a useful life of three years or more, but excluding any cost that can reasonably be funded from the general budget or other funds of the association; and

(b)     the appropriate amount of any reserve fund.

So, each board must:

  1. determine which improvements have a useful life of 3 years or more, then
  2. determine what the cost is for maintaining those improvements over the next several years, and then
  3. determine what they think the appropriate amount of the reserve fund should be.

There are no requirements in the law as to who has to perform the reserve analysis.  So, a board can perform the analysis or it can engage a professional to perform it.  There are several competent reserve study professionals serving the state of Utah.  There are also websites that will create your reserve study for you based on your input, and some will allow users to run “what if” scenarios with their components and funding plans.  A simple Google search will lead to those sites (I cannot vouch for the quality or value of such online services since I’ve never personally used them or analyzed their results).

There are many options when it comes to fulfilling the requirements of this law.  Each association should find the option that works best for them.

Don’t forget the law also requires each board to, annually, present the reserve study to the homeowners at the annual homeowner meeting or at a special meeting of the homeowners, and provide an opportunity for homeowners to discuss reserves and to vote on whether to fund a reserve fund and, if so, how to fund it and in what amount.  The association must also prepare and keep minutes of the meeting and indicate in the minutes any decision relating to funding a reserve fund.

5 Comments | Governance, HOA Finances, New Condo Laws, New Non-Condo HOA Laws, Reserves, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Curtis G. Kimble

Some Topical Updates on HOA Issues

March 16, 2012

By Curtis G. Kimble.

On our Facebook page, we share information, articles, links, and developments in condo and HOA issues, in addition to our more detailed posts on this blog.  For those of you who don’t subscribe to our Facebook page, I thought I’d pass on some recent links and news we’ve shared recently:

  • Condo Association Settles Lawsuit with Veteran over Service Dog  By Erin Alberty | The Salt Lake Tribune

“A Park City condo association will pay $20,000 to a disabled veteran, ending a legal conflict over whether the man should be forced to pay fees to keep a service dog that helps him cope with depression and anxiety.

The U.S. Justice Department sued the Fox Point at Redstone condo association and its management company in November, alleging that Thomas Burton, a combat veteran of the first Gulf War, was forced to move out of his rented condo because the association would not waive its pet fees and insurance requirements for Burton’s service dog . . .”   Read more here

  • Who Prepares Your Association’s Tax Return?   by Lisa Magill, Florida Condo and HOA Law Blog

“A Las Vegas HOA is currently fighting with the IRS over the question of whether $2 million held in the HOA’s savings account is subject to income tax at the rate of 30%.

Associations are generally organized as not-for-profit corporations (some older associations are not incorporated) and therefore must file tax returns like other not-for-profit corporations. Associations are not entitled to tax exempt status like charitable organizations. To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in the Code. To be tax exempt under IRC 501(c)(4), a homeowners’ association must operate for the benefit of the general public, i.e., it must provide a community benefit – not a benefit to the owners or residents . . .”  Read more here

  • Although written in Virginia, the same principles apply in Utah:  Is It Time for Your Community Association to Audit Its Governing Documents?  By Susan Bradford Tarley.

“Many communities were established 20-40 years ago with governing documents that worked well for the developer, and for the most part the community association. However, many of these governing documents are outdated. Virginia and federal laws pertaining to community associations have changed substantially. If your board of directors has not engaged in an audit of your communities governing documents in the past 5-7 years, it should.

When should documents be amended?  Although there are many reasons for amending documents, these 7 reasons are the most common: . . .”   Read more here

If you would like to see more information, links and updates on condo and HOA issues in addition to the posts on this blog, be sure to like us on Facebook and you’ll see our Facebook posts in your Facebook feed.  A direct link is on the right of this page, or our page can be found here Richards, Kimble & Winn on Facebook

2 Comments | Enforcement, Governance, HOA Finances | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Curtis G. Kimble

The Results Are In: The 2012 Utah Legislative Session

March 8, 2012

By Curtis G. Kimble.

The 2012 general session of the Utah Legislature ends tonight at midnight and only one small change to a current law and no new laws affecting condominiums and homeowners associations were passed this year.  This is probably welcome news to the many boards and management committees that were likely more than a little overwhelmed by last year’s many changes.

The only change this year is to the law regarding reserve studies.  A board is required to conduct a reserve study every five years and to review and update it every two years.  But, when S.B. 56 goes into effect on May 8 of this year (assuming it’s signed by the Governor), a board will only have to conduct a reserve study every six years and review and update it every three years.  While industry professionals generally agree that a reserve study should be updated more frequently than that, even annually, and many states require an annual review and update of a reserve study, this change to the law will take some pressure off boards.

No other new laws or changes affecting condos and HOAs will go into effect this year.  Next year, expect to see more significant changes proposed that haven’t been seen yet.  I have a feeling we can also expect to see that Ombudsman bill (H.B. 56) that I explained here proposed yet again.

1 Comment | New Condo Laws, New HOA Laws, New Non-Condo HOA Laws, Reserves | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Curtis G. Kimble

Reserves: An Option, a Tool or a Necessity?

August 31, 2011

Any good leader of a major corporation (which most HOAs are) knows to utilize and rely on the input of professionals.  To that end, I recently came across some comments regarding reserves from different HOA industry professionals that I didn’t really expect to hear, so I wanted to share them.

The first wasn’t unexpected, but made some good points (be sure to check out the full article):

From an article by an HOA reserve specialist:

“We are in a situation where too many well-intentioned board members and managers are feeling pressure to have a strong reserve fund (more than 70 percent funded) or low reserve contributions at their associations. They want the association to look good to buyers and lenders. But at what cost?

“Reserve planning is based on estimating future costs and repairs. It’s natural to feel optimistic about the future, but board members and managers shouldn’t hide the facts. If you think “a new roof surely won’t cost that much” or “the paint will easily last another five years,” too much optimism can come back to bite you when there isn’t enough money in the reserve fund to cover expenses.

“A community association’s reserve balance doesn’t care about the board’s good intentions, and the building’s components don’t care about the board’s optimism. The reserve balance is what it is, and components will fail whether you have the money saved or not. Facilities are surprisingly expensive to maintain.”

From HOA insurance and risk management specialist, Joel Meskin, Esq., CIRMS:

“Having insured over 75,000 community associations nationwide, I have taken the position that a properly done and funded reserve study is one of the best and most effective risk management tools available to community associations. By having an effective reserve study, many claims that we see daily would never be made against associations.”

And finally, from a post by HOA lending specialist Alan Seilhammer:

“A community association must always first keep in mind that the correct step to take in paying for capital maintenance improvements is to build adequate reserves based on a professionally prepared reserve study that is updated periodically. If the association has not taken that basic step, what is left are only painful and more costly options:  special assessments and long term financing. I have yet to hear a valid argument as to why building a proper level of reserves over time is not the least cost option or the fairest option spread across all unit owners that enjoy use of the building common elements for varying periods of time.

“Needless to say, building appropriate levels of reserves has been the exception versus the rule. Enter the financiers. A very important lesson to appreciate in obtaining a loan for a capital maintenance project is that the loan is not to fund the project. The loan is in reality replacing the lack of reserves that should have been in place so the association could self fund the project.”

A healthy reserve fund doesn’t just help the value of homes and their ability to be bought and sold, it’s an important risk management tool. Nor are reserves an option or alternative to a special assessment or a bank loan.  As a lender very frankly and non self-servingly stated, a loan (or a special assessment) really just replaces the lack of reserves that should have been there in the first place.

Curtis G. Kimble

 

2 Comments | HOA Finances, Reserves | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by Curtis G. Kimble

« Previous Entries