Imagine this: Your homeowners association, let’s call it Whispering Pines Lodge HOA, has been operating smoothly for years. But recently, a board member does a quick internet search and discovers a shiny new website—whisperingpineslodge.com—run by a third-party property management company or a local real estate agent renting out units in your community.

Suddenly, your residents and potential buyers are confused. Is this the official HOA website? Who is actually in charge here?

Before you brace yourselves for aggressive (and expensive) litigation, let’s break down the legal realities of HOA trademarks and look at some practical, cost-effective steps to protect your community’s identity.

The Basics: Common Law vs. Federal Trademarks

First things first. Does an HOA need a federal trademark to protect their name? The short answer is: No, but it’s complicated.

Under U.S. law, a trademark is acquired the moment a mark (like your HOA’s name or logo) is used in commerce. This grants the owner the right to prevent others from using confusingly similar marks. This is called a “common law” trademark, and it apply to marks currently used within a specific geographic area. You don’t actually need to file paperwork in Washington D.C. to get this basic protection.

Because your HOA has likely used its name since the day the Declaration was recorded, the Association almost certainly holds common law trademark rights over its full, official name in the local area.

If a court were to look at a potential infringement, they would evaluate whether the competing use causes a “likelihood of consumer confusion,” dilutes the value of your name, or implies that the HOA has authorized or endorsed the third party. This is also the HOA’s concern; members may stumble onto copies governing documents or rules on a third-party website and be led astray by outdated information.

The “Gray Area” of Generic, Common Words

Here’s where things get tricky. While you might own the rights to your full HOA name, claiming exclusive rights to individual, common words is an uphill battle.

If your community is called Whispering Pines Lodge, each of the individual words, “Whispering,” “Pines,” and “Lodge” are incredibly common. These are words used in everyday speech, so legally preventing a third party from using those individual words is very difficult. Combining multiple words is a good start at becoming more unique. Whispering Pines Lodge puts you in a legal gray area. The combination of these words is a little less common, but someone is likely using a similar name somewhere on the internet. However, as an existing HOA using the name in the area, you will have some protection. Pro tip: the more unique the name, the easier to protect.

Domains are Not Trademarks

It’s easy to assume that if you own the trademark, you should automatically own the domain. Unfortunately, the internet doesn’t work that way.

In a legal sense, a domain name is treated as a form of intangible property; it’s just a digital address. While a trademark can be used as a domain, you generally cannot stop someone else from registering a domain name that incorporates common words, as long as they aren’t using it to actively deceive consumers or sell counterfeit goods.

While the HOA could try to buy up every competing domain name, paying to acquire and maintain a bunch of dormant websites is rarely a prudent use of association funds.

Practical Remedies That Won’t Break the Bank

If an aggressive lawsuit isn’t the answer, what should an HOA do when a third party is piggybacking off their name? Here is the Miller Harrison approach:

1. Send a Letter

If online confusion is a real concern, we recommend sending a formal letter to the third-party property managers or agents. Trademark law rewards those who actively prevent others from using their mark. The letter will officially request that they modify their website to clarify they are notaffiliated with the Association. Usually, adding a simple disclaimer, providing a direct link to the official HOA site, or explicitly identifying themselves as a third-party manager is enough to solve the problem.

2. Leverage SEO Instead of Lawsuits.

If your HOA website is buried on page three of Google for the search term “Whispering Pines Lodge Utah” but pulls up first for “Whispering Pines Lodge Utah HOA”, the most practical solution is Search Engine Optimization (SEO). Investing a little time or money into improving your official site’s SEO will ensure it pops up first when owners are looking for you. It’s can often be much cheaper to outrank the competition on Google than it is to out-litigate them in court.

3. Consider Federal Registration (If It Makes Sense)

Federal trademark registration remains an option. While not strictly necessary, it provides stronger enforcement rights across the entire country and puts the public on official notice of your ownership. The process involves an application, a review period by the USPTO, and a public opposition period. Even then, it’s not a magic shield. It only protects you in specific categories of commerce and doesn’t give you a monopoly on generic words. Still, if you want to solidify your priority, it’s a tool worth considering.

The Bottom Line

When it comes to HOA name confusion, you have rights, but you also have options that don’t require draining your reserve accounts on legal fees.

If your community is dealing with digital doppelgängers, a well-drafted letter and a smart web strategy are usually your best bets. If you need help drafting that letter, evaluating your common law rights, or applying for a federal trademark, the team at Miller Harrison is here to help. Contact us today to keep your HOA’s good name exactly where it belongs—with you.

If you’re reading this and your HOA’s records consist of an envelope of receipts, loose dollars, and a picture of the Board President from 2001, keep reading. If you’re reading this and your HOA’s records are dialed in, neatly sorted, alphabetized, color-coded, and digitally easy to find, keep reading. You see, no matter the state of your HOA’s records, the dreaded records request will come for us all. Don’t be scared. We just need to make sure you’re ready.

An Owner’s Requirements for a Records Request

Owners want to ensure that their HOA is a well-oiled machine. In order to get access to certain records, an owner must submit a properly formatted written request. A casual verbal comment at a board meeting or a vague text to a board member doesn’t trigger the statutory penalties. Under Utah Code § 57-8a-227(3)(a), the owner’s written request must explicitly include:

• The Association’s Name
• The Owner’s Full Name
• The Property Address
• The Owner’s Email Address
• A Clear Description of the specific documents requested

Additionally, under § 57-8a-227(3)(b), the owner must specify their election on how they want to receive or view the records. If a request is missing these core statutory elements, a board can ask the owner to resubmit a compliant written request before spending association resources compiling documents. Whether a request stems from genuine curiosity or an escalating dispute over vendor contracts, ignoring or improperly handling a member’s demand for documents can quickly turn an administrative minor hassle into a costly legal headache. Utah Code Section 57-8a-227 sets the ground rules for community associations that has mostly been straightforward. But a notable shift from the Utah HOA Ombudsman’s Office has shifted the landscape on what associations must hand over.

Why HOAs Must Respond and How Fast

Under Utah Code § 57-8a-227, homeowners have a clear statutory right to inspect and copy core association documents.

• The Timeline: An association has 10 business days from receipt of a written request to comply.
• The Core Documents: The statutory list includes recorded CC&Rs, bylaws, rules, approved meeting minutes (past 3 years), insurance certificates, reserve analyses, and annual financial statements.

Failing to respond within the statutory window is rarely a winning strategy:

1. For failing to provide core website-required documents (governing documents, recent minutes, and annual budgets/financials), the HOA incurs a mandatory $25 per day penalty paid to the owner, starting on the 11th business day.
2. If an owner sends a 10-day cure notice and the board fails to fix the issue, the owner can file a lawsuit. If they win, the court can order production, award actual damages (or $1,000, whichever is greater), and force the HOA to pay the owner’s attorney fees.

The Ombudsman’s Plot Twist

While § 57-8a-227 requires associations to provide “appropriate accounting records” under Utah Code § 16-6a-1601(2), the term itself has long been a grey area. Previously, many associations operated under the assumption that providing high-level financial summary reports—like annual profit-and-loss statements and balance sheets—was enough to satisfy the statute. However, in Advisory Opinion 2026-28 (issued July 14, 2026), the Utah HOA Ombudsman expressly reconsidered its prior position and introduced significant clarity—and confusion—for board operations:

• Financial Statements ≠ Accounting Records: The Ombudsman clarified that high-level summary reports and “appropriate accounting records” are distinctly different.
• Executed Contracts & Invoices MUST Be Produced: The Ombudsman ruled that transaction-level source documents used to build the budget or verify financial statements—including executed vendor contracts, invoices, receipts, and general ledgers—are “appropriate accounting records” that an HOA must provide upon request.
• Where the Line Is Drawn: The Ombudsman drew a firm boundary around unexecuted bids and vendor proposals. Drafts, unaccepted bids, or rejected proposals that never created a financial obligation for the association do not constitute accounting records and do not have to be disclosed.

What This Means for Your Board’s Best Practices

This shift means boards cannot simply point an owner to an online budget spreadsheet and consider the matter closed if the owner asks to see the underlying vendor contracts supporting those budget line items.

• To protect your association, boards should adopt these best practices immediately:
• Maintain neat, auditable digital records of all executed contracts, paid invoices, and bank statements alongside your monthly financials.
• Store unaccepted vendor bids in separate administrative files so they aren’t accidentally commingled or improperly disclosed.
• Date-stamp every written request upon arrival to ensure your 10-business-day compliance clock doesn’t run out unnoticed.

If your association has received a complex records request or wants to audit its document retention policy under the latest Utah rulings, reach out to the legal team at Miller Harrison today. We’ll help keep your books clean, your responses timely, and your board out of the crosshairs.

In our last article, we discussed the different ways Utah HOAs and condominium associations can fund major repairs, including operating funds, reserves, and special assessments. When a board determines that a special assessment is necessary, two important questions usually follow:

1. How do we make sure the assessment is legally valid?
2. Can we fund the project now without requiring every owner to come up with a large lump sum payment immediately?

The answers to those questions depend on Utah law and the association’s governing documents. The declaration and bylaws may determine whether the board can approve the assessment on its own or whether an owner vote is required. The governing documents and Utah law also impose specific requirements for notice, voting, allocation of the assessment, and payment. For larger projects, an association loan can also be a useful tool. When structured properly, a loan can allow the association to complete needed work promptly while giving owners who need additional time the ability to pay their assessments over a longer period.

But both pieces need to be done correctly. An improperly authorized assessment can create collection and enforcement problems. Poorly negotiated loan documents can also give a lender rights that are unnecessarily broad or require the board to make commitments that exceed its authority under the governing documents.

Making Sure the Special Assessment Is Properly Authorized

Before imposing a significant special assessment, the board should answer several basic questions such as:

1. Does the board have authority to approve the assessment, or is an owner vote required?
2. How must the assessment be allocated among the owners?
3. Are there limits on the amount, timing, or purpose of the assessment?
4. 4. What meeting, notice, and voting procedures apply?

Some governing documents allow the board to impose a special assessment without an owner vote. Others require owner approval, particularly for assessments above a certain amount or for particular types of expenses. The board should also verify how the cost must be divided. An equal division among lots or units may seem fair, but the declaration may require the expense to be allocated according to ownership interests, percentages, unit types, or another formula.

Utah law also imposes requirements concerning association meetings and budgets, and the governing documents may add additional procedures. Depending on how the project is funded and the assessment is structured, those requirements may need to be considered as part of the process.

For a significant assessment, clear communication with owners should begin before the assessment is approved. No owner wants to be surprised by a large, unexpected bill. The board should give owners reasonable notice of the proposed project and assessment, explain why the work is needed and how the proposed assessment will be calculated, and provide any meeting or voting information required by the governing documents or Utah law.

Once the assessment is properly approved, the board should adopt a written resolution identifying the project, the total amount being assessed, each owner’s share, payment deadlines, available payment options, and how any association financing will work. Providing clear information before the assessment is adopted, followed by clear documentation after approval, can reduce confusion, owner frustration, and disputes over the assessment.

Using an Association Loan to Give Owners More Time to Pay

One of the practical challenges with a large special assessment is that not every owner has substantial cash readily available. An association loan can sometimes make the assessment more manageable. Instead of waiting for every owner to pay the entire assessment before beginning the project, the association may borrow the funds needed to complete the work and use assessment payments to repay the loan. Owners who are able to pay their assessment in full may be permitted to do so, while owners who need additional time may be offered a longer payment schedule.

This approach can be particularly useful when repairs cannot reasonably wait but the board is concerned about the financial impact of a large assessment on individual owners. It can give owners more flexibility without forcing the association to delay necessary work while it waits for assessment payments to come in.

Before offering a payment over time option, the board should determine the following:

1. Whether owners may prepay their share.
2. How interest and financing costs will be allocated.
3. Whether owners who pay immediately can avoid some or all financing costs.
4. What happens to an unpaid assessment balance if an owner sells.
5. What happens if an owner fails to make the required payments.

The assessment documents and the loan documents should address these issues consistently.

Be Careful About What the Lender Is Asking For

A lender’s loan documents are naturally written to protect the lender. That does not mean every provision is appropriate for every association. Association loan agreements may contain restrictions affecting the association’s financial decisions for years after the loan closes. A lender may seek provisions requiring the association to maintain or increase assessments, limiting the use of reserve funds, restricting additional borrowing or expenditures, assigning assessment income, or requiring lender consent before certain financial decisions are made.

Some of those protections may be reasonable but other lender protections may go considerably further than necessary. The more important question is whether the board actually has the authority to make the promises contained in the loan documents. If the declaration requires owner approval for certain assessment decisions, for example, the board should be cautious about signing an agreement promising the lender that the board will make those decisions on its own.

That is why reviewing an association loan should involve more than comparing interest rates and repayment terms. The lender’s covenants, collateral provisions, assignment of assessment income, consent rights, default remedies, and other restrictions should be compared against the association’s governing documents before the loan is signed.

Getting It Right Before the Documents Are Signed

Special assessments are difficult for owners even when everyone agrees that the underlying project is necessary. A board is in a much stronger position when it can clearly explain why the assessment is needed, how each owner’s share was calculated, how the assessment was authorized, and what payment options are available. It is also far easier to correct a problem with a proposed assessment or negotiate an unreasonable loan provision before the assessment is imposed or the loan closes. Once the assessment has been adopted or the financing documents have been signed, the association’s options may be much more limited.

Miller Harrison works with Utah HOA and condominium boards throughout this process. We review governing documents, identify the approval procedures required for special assessments, prepare assessment resolutions and owner notices, and review and negotiate association loan documents. If your association is considering a major repair project, special assessment, or association loan, involving counsel early can help ensure that the assessment and financing are structured together, properly authorized, and clearly communicated before the board moves forward.

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. The requirements applicable to a particular HOA or condominium association depend on Utah law and the association’s specific declaration, bylaws, articles, and other governing documents. Associations should consult qualified legal counsel regarding their particular circumstances.

HOA or Condo board members may have anxiety about making repairs to association common area and just as importantly—how to fund those repairs. In reality, many community associations may be apprehensive to get a contractor or vendor out and make repairs, large or small. What results is that maintenance is delayed until it’s too late, major repairs must be made, and the community has to spend more than they would have from the get-go. Why aren’t repairs made proactively? Why isn’t the up-keep better? It’s all about the money.

Understanding how to properly fund repairs isn’t just good governance; it’s a legal responsibility under Utah law that protects your community’s property values, allows associations to plan for the future, and prepare financially for emergencies. Plus, this keeps association members happy with a well-maintained community.

This guide breaks down the three primary financial mechanisms available to your association and the board: (1) annual budgets, (2) reserve accounts, and (3) special assessments.

What is the Annual Budget (or Operating Budget)?

A board may think that the operating budget is a catch-all for any expense that arises. But an operating budget must be more—it must be dedicated to the predictable, ongoing administration of the association. Utah law requires boards to prepare and adopt a budget at least annually and present it to the members. See Utah Code § 57-8-7.6 and § 57-8a-215.

What repairs can this budget be used for?

The operating budget is designed for day-to-day operations and routine upkeep. It covers regular cleaning, utilities, and minor, predictable repairs. For example, if a landscaper needs to be paid for upkeep, a sprinkler system needs adjusting, or a broken lobby door lock needs replacement, those funds come from the operating budget.

What is the Reserve Account?

Many boards think reserve funding is simple: save extra money, spend it when you need it. There’s actually more to it. By law, reserve funds can only be used for specific repairs (explained below). Boards must conduct a formal reserve analysis every six years and review or update it every three years. Furthermore, the board is legally required to maintain reserve funds in a separate account.

What repairs can the reserve be used for?

Utah law dictates that reserve funds are strictly for repairing, replacing, or restoring common areas and facilities that have a useful life of 3 years or more, and a remaining useful life of less than 30 years that cannot reasonably be funded from the annual or operating budget (such as, roofs, asphalt, or exterior siding). Pro-tip: A low-hanging fruit for a cost-effective repair from the reserve account could be new paint on the association’s exterior. Check out the podcast “HOA Insights: Common Sense for Common Areas” Episode 161 for more.

What are special assessments?

Even with the best operating budget and fully funded reserves, disasters happen and unforeseen capital deficits arise. This could be a major concrete repair after years of neglect or replacement of roofing after a storm. Special assessments are one-time additional charges levied on a lot or unit owner to cover these major, unfunded community repairs.

What is the role an attorney can play in advising boards on budgeting?

When there is a funding shortfall or a scary major repair, boards have many problem-solving tools at their disposal.

An attorney plays a vital role in interpreting Utah law and the Declaration or CC&Rs, advising boards on the annual budgets, budget approval, establishing and maintaining reserve accounts, the exact voting procedures required to pass a special assessment, and preventing the illegal commingling of funds. Furthermore, when owners fail to pay these carefully planned assessments, an attorney ensures that collection efforts, including the perfection of liens and potential foreclosures, are executed legally and effectively.

So, things did not turn out at trial the way you hoped. We’re sorry to hear that. But your attorneys have told you that you have at least one card left to play: you can appeal to a higher court! Maybe they’re even saying that you’re as sure to win on appeal as anyone can be in the great crucible of civil litigation. After spending so much of your time and money losing at trial, appealing can seem like a no-brainer—nothing more than the routine next step defeated parties take to finally get to the right result. And perhaps the typical appellate process does not sound like a big deal to you either. An opening brief, a response brief, a reply brief, and then oral arguments? Isn’t that basically the same motion practice you’ve been dealing with the whole case, just with beefier briefing?

Why not take at least one more shot at justice?

That is a deceptively complicated question that depends heavily on the circumstances and issues of your case. Suffice to say that there are a lot of reasons why an appeal could be a bad idea. For one, most appeals fail. After all, there are reasons why the case turned out the way it did and usually it is not because of errors that are significant enough for the appellate court to reverse the outcome. See Utah R. Civ. P. 61 (“Harmless error”). For another, it can be hard to know if your decision has been overly influenced by the sunk cost fallacy. Even if your attorneys are encouraging you to appeal, how do you know you’re not throwing good money after bad?

Fortunately, there is at least one metric to help you determine whether you’re in for a relatively cheap appeal that has a decent chance of success, or a more expensive appeal that is very difficult to win. Ask your attorneys what your “issues on appeal” would be and what the “standards of review” are for those issues (and what will happen if you win so that you know you are appealing a material issue). Their answers can generally be grouped into three categories, and the more expensive an issue is to appeal, the less likely it is to succeed:

1. Appealing a “conclusion of law” that is reviewed for “correctness” is generally the cheapest issue to present on appeal with the greatest chance of success. See Smith v. Volkswagen SouthTowne, Inc., 2022 UT 29, ¶ 42, 513 P.3d 729. On such issues, the appellate court gives the trial court’s reasoning “no deference” and considers the legal question as if for the first time. Id. Appealing such issues thus gives appellants a true second chance at persuading a court to interpret the law their way. Appeals solely on legal conclusions can also take significantly fewer hours worked (and accordingly, fewer hours billed by your attorneys) than trial did because there is neither the need nor the opportunity to develop further evidence on appeal. Everyone, including the appellate court itself, is stuck with the same frozen record and a purely legal issue often does not require much review of that record.
2. But appealing a discretionary decision by the trial court is a tall order. Such decisions are reviewed for “abuse,” and proving abuse of discretion is a “heavy burden” that will only succeed if you persuade the appellate court that “no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court.” Goggin v. Goggin, 2013 UT 16, ¶ 26, 299 P.3d 1079 (emphasis added). While abuse can be shown in multiple ways—e.g., “(1) there was a misunderstanding or misapplication of the law resulting in substantial and prejudicial error; (2) the evidence clearly preponderated against the finding; or (3) such a serious inequity has resulted as to manifest a clear abuse of discretion,” id. ¶ 44—it is worth keeping in mind that the ultimate question the appellate court is asking is if no reasonable person would agree with the trial court’s decision. Believe it or not, it is pretty uncommon for someone appointed to be a judge to make a totally unreasonable decision. And trying to persuade the appellate court that has happened in your case can require more extensive research, creative brainstorming, and refined drafting (i.e., more time and money) than challenging a pure conclusion of law does.
3. Finally, challenging findings of fact on appeal is both exceedingly difficult and the most expensive. Findings of fact, by either the jury or the court in a bench trial, “will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous.” Kimball v. Kimball, 2009 UT App 233, ¶ 14, 217 P.3d 733. “A trial court’s factual determinations are clearly erroneous only if they are in conflict with the clear weight of the evidence, or if this court has a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Id. (quotation simplified). To show clear error, a party should “marshal”—that is, summarize on appeal—the evidence supporting the challenged finding and then show why it is legally insufficient. Horning v. Labor Comm’n, 2023 UT App 30, ¶ 31, 529 P.3d 352 (“[A]n appellant failing to marshal all relevant evidence presented at trial which tends to support the findings and demonstrate why the findings are clearly erroneous will almost certainly fail to carry their burden of persuasion on appeal.” (emphasis added)). Unlike challenging a pure conclusion of law, challenging a finding of fact thus requires comprehensive review of the record and detailed drafting to marshal the supporting evidence and all the time and money that entails, which will then usually fail anyway. “The pill that is hard for many appellants to swallow is that if there is evidence supporting a finding, absent a legal problem—a ‘fatal flaw’—with that evidence, the finding will stand, even though there is ample record evidence that would have supported contrary findings.” Kimball v. Kimball, 2009 UT App 233, ¶ 20 n.5, 217 P.3d 733 (also indicating that the appellate courts will not reweigh the evidence on appeal). For this reason, some appellate attorneys will even generally refuse to challenge findings of fact because the odds of prevailing are so low and they do not want to bill their clients the significant fees needed to, ultimately, lose anyway. Ironically, these are often the kind of issues that parties are most passionate about because they truly know for a fact that the jury or court got it wrong, but just because they believed the wrong side does not mean the evidence will be legally insufficient to support their findings. You should carefully consider challenging findings of fact on appeal as objectively as possible. If your attorneys are willing or eager to challenge findings of fact on appeal, ask them to detail specifically how they are going to show that the supporting evidence is legally insufficient to support the challenged findings.

Ultimately, the decision of whether to appeal or not should be a sober financial decision based on the balance of risk vs. potential reward, which depends heavily on the kinds of issues you intend to present on appeal. We hope this information is helpful in determining your next steps after an unsuccessful trial.

Litigation can feel like it has swallowed your whole world, and the financial stakes may be life-changing. Nonetheless, please remember that you have a life outside of your case and even after a bitter defeat, there will be a morning after and the hopefully chance to adapt to any new circumstances you face.

By Amy C. Walker

I. Where Zoning Comes From

You just bought a piece of property here in the United States and the State of Utah. You have big dreams about what you can do with that property. What’s the next step?

At common law, a landowner’s baseline right is to use property freely, and both constitutions protect property as a fundamental interest. The Utah Constitution guarantees the inherent and inalienable right “to acquire, possess and protect property.” Utah Const. art. I, § 1. It also provides that private property may not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation. Utah Const. art. I, § 22. The federal counterparts are the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. U.S. Const. amend. V; U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.

But neither constitution guarantees unrestricted use. Your right to use your property is subject to the laws that govern your property. So which laws are those?

Well, that depends on your zoning. Zoning authority comes from the state. Local governments can only regulate land use to the extent the State Legislature and federal government have authorized them to. Zoning survived its constitutional test in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926), where the U.S. Supreme Court upheld comprehensive zoning against a due process challenge. But Euclid did not create zoning authority.

In Utah, zoning authorization comes from LUDMA, which is shorthand for both the County Land Use, Development, and Management Act, Utah Code Title 17, Chapter 79, and the Municipal Land Use, Development, and Management Act, Utah Code Title 10, Chapter 20. LUDMA balances the right of property owners to develop their own property against the right of counties, cities, and towns to govern how their jurisdictions develop through zoning law.

II. What Your Zoning Allows

Your local governing body is the legislative body that sets the zoning for its jurisdiction through zoning ordinances. Zoning ordinances include the map or maps that show which zone your property is in, as well as the rules that say what is allowed in your zone. Typically, these will specify permitted uses, conditional uses, housing types, lot sizes and density, setbacks, open space requirements, and anything else your local government’s representatives think makes sense for the people who live there.

So, what can you do with your land? Whatever the zoning ordinances allow. And here LUDMA puts a thumb on the scale in your favor. A land use authority must apply the plain language of its land use regulations, and if a regulation does not plainly restrict a land use application, the authority must interpret and apply it to favor the application. Utah Code § 10-20-901(2); Utah Code § 17-79-801(2). Utah courts say the same thing: because zoning ordinances are in derogation of a property owner’s common-law right to unrestricted use, provisions restricting property uses are strictly construed in favor of the property owner. Patterson v. Utah County Bd. of Adjustment, 893 P.2d 602, 606 (Utah Ct. App. 1995).

If the ordinances look good, then before you build you’ll typically need a land use application and a building permit. And in some cases, subdivision or plat approval. Subdivisions are needed if you want to divide your property into more than one parcel or if your project otherwise requires it. And an applicant whose application conforms to the ordinance in effect at the time of submission is generally entitled to approval. Western Land Equities, Inc. v. City of Logan, 617 P.2d 388 (Utah 1980).

If you aren’t sure, most cities allow an initial review meeting on your project with the zoning administrator or community development director. They can point you in the right direction and often give you insight into the kinds of projects your local government likes and doesn’t like.

Applications also differ in how much discretion the local government has. Some are administrative approvals, which means that as long as you cross your t’s and dot your i’s, you’re entitled to approval. Others are discretionary, which is where the land use authority has room for a judgment call. A conditional use is the classic example. It’s a use that is allowed, but only if you can meet the conditions your local government imposes. Those conditions must be tied to codified standards, but they often include consistency with the general plan, demonstrating that you won’t harm your neighbors, and showing that traffic concerns can be mitigated. Importantly, a conditional use must be approved if the reasonably anticipated detrimental effects can be substantially mitigated. Utah Code § 10-20-506.

Legislative solutions can include asking for a rezone, requesting changes to the code, or entering into a development agreement. However, these are the hardest, as your only real legally protected right in the legislative process is at the ballot box through voting in your officials and, in some cases, referendum. Your local government can simply decline to change the code. And when it does change the code, it can do so for almost any reason, so long as the ordinance is constitutional, does not conflict with state law, and it is reasonably debatable that the ordinance serves a legitimate public purpose. Once your local representatives have enacted a lawful ordinance, it remains in effect until they decide to change it.

III. Getting Help

Land use approvals are complicated in practice. Which category your application falls into, what the ordinance actually says, and how quickly you have to act if something goes wrong vary from place to place. If you’re running into issues with your local governing body, or you’d like help getting your project approved, our office can help.

This post is general information, not legal advice. Amy Walker is an attorney at Miller Harrison Law in Murray, Utah, practicing land use, real estate development, and civil litigation. She holds a Masters in Real Estate Development in addition to her law degree and represents developers, municipalities, HOAs, and property owners throughout the entitlement process.

THIS LAND IS MY LAND; IT ISN’T YOUR LAND

Navigating Boundary by Acquiescence in Utah

August 12, 2026

Neighbors can be great friends or fantastic enemies, and getting into a fight over boundaries rarely improves those sometimes delicate diplomatic relations with your would-be friends just over the fence.

First, a Word About Neighbors

While nothing in this post constitutes legal advice (you should seek out your own legal counsel), at my firm we frequently find ourselves telling our clients to carefully consider the cost of any dispute before they jump in headfirst.  Sometimes, trouble is unavoidable, and we recognize that.  But litigating a full boundary dispute can be a lengthy and a costly process – in terms of more than just money!  Even if you win, living next to a resentful neighbor can put a significant damper on your enjoyment of your home.  Something to bear in mind.

Hopefully the information in this post will help avoid disputes by providing a better understanding of how boundary lines can shift over time under certain circumstances.

Boundary by Acquiescence

Many people in Utah have some understanding of the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence in that they are aware, at least to some extent, of the fact that boundaries between properties can change over time depending on how the properties are treated.

For a legal boundary line to change under boundary by acquiescence, the circumstances that have to be present are:

1. The properties in question have to be adjoining
2. There has to be a visible line that is different from the actual legal boundary, and:
3. That non-boundary visible line has to have been treated as the real boundary line for a period of at least twenty years.

If any one of these isn’t present, then there is no boundary by acquiescence.  There are a couple bits of additional nuance to this doctrine that are worth discussing briefly here.

Let’s talk about the visible boundary line requirement first.

Visible Line

Aside from being visible, the line of the would-be boundary has to have “permanence, stability and a definite location.”  This definition of what constitutes a “visible line” for the purposes of boundary by acquiescence is actually fairly liberal, but it does have limits.

Specifically, “permanence” does not mean, for example, that a fence that would otherwise satisfy the visible line requirement has to have been in place for twenty or more years as long as any replacement fence (or line) is in the exact same place.  In other words, it’s fine to have replaced the fence/erstwhile alternative boundary line, as long as something else that is also visible, having a definite location, takes its place.

A useful case to remember is the Fuoco case.  In Fuoco v. Williams, the court refused to say that an irrigation ditch was a visible boundary line.  Why not?  Well, among other things, the ditch itself would change locations periodically because it would erode and then it would be re-dug at a slightly different location periodically.  This failed the “permanence” requirement for a visible line.

Twenty Years and Tacking

We frequently see people who are unaware of the concept of tacking, and it’s something to you need to be aware of when talking about boundary by acquiescence.  For instance, your neighbor may come to you and assert that the fence that’s between your properties is the new boundary line.  And you might think that he’s completely and obviously in the wrong because you know that one of the requirements is that the fence has to have been treated as the boundary for twenty years or more and that neighbor only moved in last July.  It’s a good observation, but it might surprise you to know that you still might be wrong and your neighbor might be right, even though he only just arrived.  Why?  Because of the legal concept of tacking.

Tacking means that the twenty years of the visible line’s treatment as a boundary can be cumulative between successive owners – or, in other words, if the person who sold it to your neighbor treated the line as the boundary for fifteen years and your new neighbor treated it as the boundary for five years, the twenty year standard can be met because a court will just add up the years between successive neighbors.

Tacit Acquiescence

Another common misconception is what people infer from the word “acquiescence”.  Seeing the word “acquiescence” conjures images of two people, leaning over a mutual fence, talking about their boundary and then smiling as they shake hands in agreement – literally verbally acquiescing to a new boundary.

In this context though, acquiescence is something very different.   In fact, with this legal doctrine, acquiescence is almost always inferred from behavior over time, and isn’t verbal or written.  Most often, what happens is that both sides just quietly treat something (a visible line) as the boundary for a long time (twenty years), and that can satisfy the acquiescence portion of this doctrine.

What does treating the visible line as the boundary mean, exactly?  How does one accomplish this in a way that satisfies the doctrine?  It means that each side is making use of the property up to the visible line in a way that is consistent with the nature of the property.  When you think of a typical example of acquiescence, think of something like this: two residential neighbors in a typical suburb mowing their lawns up to the visible line, installing sprinklers, and/or weeding up to the line, or two agricultural neighbors plowing or irrigating up to the visible line, all for a period of twenty years or more.

What happens if, during the twenty year period, a fight breaks out about the would-be boundary line?  Well, that should disprove acquiescence, just the same as one or both neighbors acting like the visible line wasn’t the boundary (ex: mowing or installing sprinklers beyond the visible line).

Uncertainty, and Its Importance

One thing that even some lawyers don’t realize about boundary by acquiescence, is that – in addition to the requirements discussed above – the neighbors can’t actually know where the actual, legal, surveyed boundary is in order for the doctrine to apply.

This may sound strange, but many people don’t know where their actual legally surveyed boundaries are (particularly in older neighborhoods).  Learning where they are can thwart boundary by acquiescence.

This means that, if, during the twenty year acquiescence period, one neighbor has a survey done and acquires knowledge of the real location of the actual boundary line, they can no longer acquiesce in the visible line as an alternative and potentially new boundary.

Birthday Cake and the Complications of Q-2 (It’s Not a Band)

In Q-2, LLC v. Hughes, the Utah Supreme Court pondered when, exactly, title to property acquired through boundary by acquiescence changes hands.  Is it when the plaintiff takes his or her boundary by acquiescence case to court, and the judge rules in the plaintiff’s favor, or does it occur when all the elements are met?

Well, you may or may not be interested to learn that the Court held that it was when the elements are met.  We’ll call this point in time, the “Birthday” of the new boundary line – the date on which title to a strip of property legally changes hands under Q-2.  This seemingly innocuous clarification by a well-meaning Court has had some far-reaching effects.  Let’s talk a bit more about Birthdays.

When you’re considering a situation in which a change in boundary under boundary by acquiescence may have occurred, you need to consider the Birthday very carefully, because what happens in many, many cases, is that title to a strip of property changes hands and the new owner doesn’t even know it.  Therein lies the rub: this perhaps understandably ignorant owner of a newly minted mini-parcel will usually just sell his or her parcel to a new buyer and then move on with their life.  But the deed used to convey the property to a new owner will not include a description of this little strip the owner acquired for the very obvious reason that the owner didn’t know he acquired it and just always considered it to be his.

What does this mean?  It means that down the road, the new buyer might get into a tiff with his neighbor about boundary lines, and think to himself “Hey, this fence (or other visible line) has been here for a long time. I am going to sue for boundary by acquiescence!” only to learn that the property he’s looking to quiet title to has already been (unknowingly) acquired by his predecessor in interest – the individual who sold him the property (but not the strip) in the first place.

This of course, gets even more complicated, if the owner of the strip has, for example, died in the interim, and his or her will granted all of his or her property to Jimmy the Beard’s Trading Card Emporium.  Now, in order to get title to the strip of property, the neighbors either have to negotiate with Jimmy’s, or sue Jimmy’s to quiet title.  Imagine if the owner of the strip dies intestate and has (welcome to Utah) twelve kids!  Now, through the magic of intestate succession, that newly minted mini-parcel is now fractionally owned by a dozen heirs, and these two neighbors either have to bury the hatchet, or do the legal tango with a twelve-headed monster (either in negotiations or through litigation).  If the twelve-headed monster (or any successor owner to the strip) learns the strip is valuable, they could test its value by forcing the two neighbors to engage in a bidding war, in which case, the more wealthy neighbor may win out.

All of this can mean that some people – particularly those who can’t afford to pay a lot of legal fees, which is probably pretty much everyone in this economy – can’t afford to resolve certain boundary disputes if their neighbor isn’t seeing things their way.  It can be quite a mess.

So two last bits of non-legal advice: (1) if you are in a boundary dispute, and you believe title may have vested in a prior owner, contact them (if they are still around and if you can find them) and see if you can get a quit claim deed from them, and (2) when you’re entering into one of these disputes, be sure to do your homework about Birthdays so you know when title may have vested.

The Bottom Line

At the end of the day, good fences make good neighbors, but bad fences can make for some bloody legal battles.  If you suspect that a boundary line has shifted or if you’re confronted by a neighbor who claims it has shifted, take a breath, do your research, and weigh the financial and emotional costs of a feud before charging ahead.  And as always, if you need help deciphering exactly when your new boundary’s “Birthday” happened, our team is here to help you navigate the legal terrain.  We may even provide cake.

**Disclaimer: Cake may be in the form of Hostess Cupcakes.  We are not bakers.  We accept no legal responsibility for your consumption of said cakes.  Please consult a licensed medical physician before partaking.

A UTAH HOA CASE STUDY

When the Quiet Broke

One neighborhood’s long road from fear to nuisance abatement—and what Utah HOAs can learn from it

“The law did not ask whether the neighbors were inconvenienced. It asked whether the danger had become a nuisance—and whether anything short of eviction could end it.”

This article is based on the February 5, 2026 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order in Stone Creek Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Hartley, Third District Court, Salt Lake County, Case No. 250908013. It recounts the court’s findings, not independent factual findings by the author.

The House Across the Street

At first, a neighborhood measures trouble in small things: a car that arrives after midnight and leaves before anyone can remember its color; a stranger cutting through visitor parking with a backpack; a garage door lifting and closing at hours when the rest of the street is dark.

At Stone Creek, those small things accumulated. According to the court’s findings, cars stopped at one house for five or ten minutes at a time. People came and went on bicycles and skateboards. Police returned so often that a detective testified he may have been called to that property more than any other in West Valley City.

Then the quiet did not merely thin. It broke.

In March 2022, a SWAT team executed a search warrant. The court found that officers located guns, drugs, stolen property, drug paraphernalia, and fraudulent documents. Three months later, another raid uncovered a stolen motorcycle, heroin, fentanyl pills, and 246 grams—more than half a pound—of methamphetamine. Six people were arrested, four on active warrants. The health department closed the residence for methamphetamine contamination—stating that the quantity of drugs found at the residence would “make Walgreens jealous.”

Even condemnation did not restore peace. Days later, officers responding to a report of people entering the sealed home found a woman hiding beneath a mattress. She was arrested for trespass and possession of methamphetamine. In 2023, a federal fugitive team arrived for a wanted man living there; another occupant threw methamphetamine through a second-story window as officers approached.

A Neighborhood Learns to Flinch

The story the neighbors told at trial was not only about contraband. It was about the slow and harrowing rearrangement of ordinary life around fear.

The HOA president, who lived across the street, described raids loud enough to wake the neighborhood: officers, drawn weapons, flash-bang devices. She testified that the repeated disturbances caused profound harm to her family, including severe trauma to her autistic daughter. Other neighbors described avoiding the property, fearing retaliation, and wondering whether they should leave homes they had once regarded as safe.

In August 2025, the danger escalated again. An occupant shot another person at the property. The related criminal charges were dismissed without prejudice and, the trial court noted, later refiled; they had not been adjudicated when the civil eviction order was entered. The civil court found that the shooter was a restricted person unlawfully possessing a firearm. Eleven days after the shooting, SWAT officers returned with a no-knock warrant. Five people were detained, and one was arrested with methamphetamine.

The distinction mattered. The HOA case was not a substitute criminal prosecution. It was a civil action asking what the law and the HOA’s governing documents permitted the community to do about a place where the court found drug activity and a weapons offense continued to occur.

The Drug House Owner’s Open Door Policy

At trial, the owner testified that she rented rooms informally, month to month. IN fact, there was evidence that she used a QR code on the entry wall for would-be renters to pay her. There were no written leases, applications, or background checks. The court found that she did not meaningfully screen the people who lived at or frequented the property. She had evicted the occupant involved in the shooting more than once, yet allowed him to return—eve after the shooting.

The court did not accept the idea that the nuisance was merely a succession of unrelated wrongdoers passing through an innocent owner’s home. It found an ongoing pattern enabled by the owner’s choices: people engaged in drug use, possession, and dealing were repeatedly allowed to reside at and use the property after raids, warnings, contamination, and a shooting. The court expressly found the owner’s denials of continuing drug problems not credible.

That finding became the hinge of the case. The nuisance, the court wrote in substance, was not an accident that happened to the property. It continued and was, in fact, maintained.

Two Roads to the Same Remedy

Stone Creek proceeded on two paths. The first was state law. Utah Code sections 78B-6-1107 (superseded 2026) through 1114 identify certain premises-based criminal activity—including specified controlled-substance activity and weapons offenses—as a nuisance, and they provide a civil process for abatement by eviction.

Under section 78B-6-1109, eviction required more than proof that unlawful activity had occurred. The HOA had to show irreparable harm; that the threatened injury outweighed the harm eviction might cause; that eviction would not be adverse to the public interest; and either a substantial likelihood of success or serious merits issues warranting further litigation. Because the expedited proceeding became a trial on the merits, the court found that Stone Creek had actually prevailed—not merely shown a likelihood of doing so.

The second path ran through the recorded CC&Rs. Article 9.5 prohibited noxious, illegal, or offensive activity and conduct that could become an annoyance or nuisance. Another section made every CC&R violation a nuisance, and made remedies available at law or equity applicable to its abatement. The CC&Rs also authorized enforcement actions. The court treated those contractual remedies as cumulative, not exclusive, and concluded that the same conduct established both a state law nuisance and a material breach of the declaration.

The order required the owners and all occupants to vacate within twenty-one days. It barred them and those acting with them from occupying the property, facilitating specified nuisance activities, reentering without further court order, or intimidating the HOA’s trial witnesses. Law enforcement was authorized to assist. The court also awarded the HOA all its requested attorney fees and costs against the offending owner.

What Utah HOAs Can Learn

Stone Creek is a powerful example, but it is not a shortcut. It is a trial-court order arising from extraordinary facts, particular CC&R language, extensive evidence, and a fully litigated record. It does not mean every covenant nuisance supports eviction. The practical lessons are more disciplined—and more useful.

• Start with the grant of authority. Read the CC&Rs, bylaws, rules, enforcement provisions, leasing provisions, and remedies together. Identify the exact covenant violated, who is responsible for occupants and guests, whether remedies are cumulative, and whether the documents authorize injunctive relief, fines, self-help, fees, or other enforcement. Do not assume that a general nuisance clause contains every remedy.
• Describe conduct, not character. Notices and board records should identify dates, events, witnesses, police incident numbers, and the provision violated. Avoid labels, rumor, or moral judgments. The Stone Creek record succeeded because it connected specific events to specific statutory and contractual standards, rather than character assassination.
• Build a chronology before a crisis. Maintain a secure incident log, preserve photographs and video lawfully, retain copies of notices and responses, and collect declarations from witnesses while memories are fresh. Obtain public police records through proper channels. Never encourage residents to trespass, confront occupants, or conduct their own surveillance in unsafe circumstances.
• Use ordinary enforcement correctly. For many nuisances, written warnings, hearings, fines, suspension of privileges where authorized, and an injunction are the appropriate ladder. Utah’s HOA and condominium fine statutes impose notice and hearing requirements. Follow both the governing documents and the applicable statute; defective process can distract from otherwise strong facts.
• Distinguish annoyance from statutory criminal nuisance. Utah’s abatement-by-eviction statute targets enumerated premises-based activity. Noise, parking, animals, odors, or unsightly conditions may violate covenants without satisfying sections 78B-6-1107 through 1114 (superseded). Match the remedy to the legal theory instead of forcing every dispute into the most severe category.
• Show why lesser measures failed. If extraordinary relief becomes necessary, document prior warnings, repeat violations, owner responses, unsuccessful efforts to remove problem occupants, continued danger, and non-compensable harm. The Stone Creek court repeatedly relied on the persistence of the problem and the failure of lesser measures.
• Coordinate; do not deputize the HOA. Report emergencies and suspected crimes to law enforcement. Counsel can seek admissible records and coordinate service or safety planning. The board’s role is governance and civil enforcement—not investigation of crimes or physical removal of occupants.
• Identify and notify every necessary party. Title holders, tenants, and occupants may have distinct rights. The abatement by eviction statutes and ordinary due-process principles require careful party and notice analysis. Confirm title, occupancy, lease status, service requirements, and any pending bankruptcy before filing.
• Protect witnesses and sensitive records. Use a need-to-know process for witness identities, medical details, law-enforcement material, and attorney communications. Plan for meetings, testimony, and potential retaliation. A board should not publish allegations broadly merely because litigation is contemplated.
• Screen for overlapping laws. Fair-housing duties, disability accommodations, landlord-tenant rules, municipal ordinances, record-inspection rights, insurance obligations, and bankruptcy can alter procedure. An accommodation obligation does not authorize criminal conduct, but the HOA must still avoid discriminatory assumptions and evaluate lawful requests individually.
• Bring in legal counsel before the final notice. A lawyer can help select the proper claim, preserve privilege, audit the governing documents, test admissibility, assess emergency-relief standards, and avoid remedies the documents or statute do not support. Early review is usually less expensive than repairing an inconsistent enforcement record.

The Larger Point

A homeowners association is not a police department, and nuisance language is not a license to govern by suspicion. Yet an HOA is also not required to look away while a documented, dangerous pattern consumes the neighbors’ use of their homes.

The Stone Creek case turned on patience under pressure: years of incidents reduced to reliable records; frightened residents willing to testify; law-enforcement evidence tied to statutory elements; and governing documents whose promises could be enforced alongside state law. By the time the court ordered the house emptied, the remedy was severe because the proof showed the nuisance was severe—and because the lesser answers had already failed.

For Utah boards, that is the lasting lesson. Act early. Write precisely. Enforce consistently. Protect people. And when the ordinary tools no longer match the danger, make sure every step toward an extraordinary remedy is supported by both the documents and the law.

By: Doug Shumway, Esq.

Authorities and Editorial Notes

Source decision: Stone Creek Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Hartley, Third Judicial District Court, Salt Lake County, Case No. 250908013, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order (Feb. 5, 2026). The order is a trial-court decision and should not be described as binding statewide appellate precedent.

Criminal-nuisance statute: Utah Code §§ 78B-6-1107 to -1114 (including statutory definitions, standing, eviction factors, necessary parties, evidence, and potential fees/costs). Official/current text or decision

Community-association fines: Utah Code § 57-8a-208. Official/current text or decision

Condominium fines: Utah Code § 57-8-37. Official/current text or decision

Contract principle cited by the court: Swan Creek Village Homeowners Association v. Warne, 2006 UT 22, ¶ 44, 134 P.3d 1122. Official/current text or decision

Legal note: This article provides general educational information, not legal advice. Statutes, procedural rules, and governing documents should be checked in their current form for the particular association, property type, facts, and forum.

The “Win, Win, Win” Method

Written by: Caleb O. Andrews

In community associations, disputes are too often treated as zero-sum battles: someone wins, someone loses, and tensions linger long after the issue is closed. But when friction arises over architectural guidelines, noise complaints, or property maintenance, treating conflict like a cage match usually leaves everyone worse off.

What if we changed the playbook?

In the classic episode of The Office titled “Conflict Resolution,” (S2E21) Michael Scott famously champions the ultimate dispute resolution philosophy: the “Win, Win, Win.” While Michael’s execution left a lot to be desired, the underlying principle is surprisingly sound. A traditional win-win focuses strictly on the two opposing sides; in our case, the Board and an Owner. But a win-win-win creates a third win: a win for the entire community.

Combine Michael Scott’s theory with DJ Khaled’s iconic anthem, and the goal for any thriving HOA becomes clear: “Win, Win, Win, no matter what.”

The Shift: The emphasis isn’t on crowning a single victor and declaring a loser. It’s about building a standard of civility where the whole community comes out ahead. At the end of the day, success in a community association isn’t about defeating a neighbor in court or getting the last word at a board meeting. It’s about creating a peaceful, well-run neighborhood where people enjoy living. Having a clear standard for enforcement to help keep legal fees low—whether they are paid by an Owner in violation or by the association—is an added plus.

“Fight for the things that you care about but do it in a way that will lead others to join you.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Contact your favorite Miller Harrison lawyer today so that you too can sing with us “Win, Win, Win, No Matter What”.

Written by: Julie Ladle

You receive a notice from your HOA. According to the letter, you’ve been fined $100 because your trash can was visible from the street.  Your first thought might be: “Can they really do that?”

The answer is generally yes—but only if the HOA follows Utah law and their own governing documents. An HOA’s authority to impose fines is not unlimited, and HOAs that fail to follow the required procedures may find their fines difficult—or impossible—to enforce.

Can an  HOA Fine Owners Simply Because It Wants To?

No.  Before an HOA can assess a fine, the HOA must follow statutory requirements and any additional requirements contained in the HOA’s governing documents.  Statutory requirements stem from the Utah Community Association Act and the Utah Condominium Ownership Act (collectively the “Acts”), as applicable.  The Acts require that a written warning (“Notice of Violation”) be first provided to the offending owner.  The Notice of Violation shall:

1. 1. 1. Describe the violation;
      2. State the provision of the governing documents that the conduct violates;
      3. State the HOA may assess fines against the owner if a violation of the same provision occurs within one (1) year of the Notice of Violation;
      4. In the case of a continuing violation, contain a statement that if the violation is not remedied by a specified compliance deadline (of at least 48 hours), fines may be assessed.

After sending the Notice of Violation, the HOA may impose fines if the violation is repeated any time within a one (1) year period of time after the Notice of Violation is sent or if the violation is not cured or ceased within the time specified in the Notice of Violation. For continuing violations remaining uncured, fines may continue to be assessed every ten (10) days. In the condominium context, the aggregate amount of fines assessed against an owner for violations of the same provision of the governing documents may not exceed $500 in any one calendar month.  All fines must be based on a written schedule of fines that has been adopted by the HOA.

Can Owners Appeal a Fine?

Yes.  Under the Acts, an owner has the right to request an informal hearing with the HOA within thirty (30) days from the date a notice is provided to the owner stating that a fine has been assessed by the HOA. If an Owner timely requests a hearing, no interest or late fees on the fine(s) may accrue until after the hearing and final decision.  At the hearing, the HOA shall provide the owner a reasonable opportunity to present owner’s position to the Board and shall allow all persons involved in the hearing to participate by means of electronic communication.  An owner may appeal an assessed fine by initiating a civil action within 180 days after: (1) if the owner timely requests a hearing, the day on which the owner receives a final decision from the HOA; or (2) if the owner does not timely request a hearing, the day on which the time to request an informal hearing expires.

Are Fines Enforceable? 

Likely yes, provided the HOA follows the Acts and any separate requirements in the HOA’s governing documents.  Fines are enforcement tools to keep the community running smoothly and efficiently.   The HOA Board has the responsibility to consistently enforce the governing documents against all owners in the community.   If not, the community suffers, and the governing documents become meaningless and harder and harder to enforce.   

What If My HOA Has Questions?

The attorneys at Miller Harrison will be happy to discuss any questions and concerns that arise regarding fines and ensure that HOAs are assessing fines correctly.   Feel free to reach out to our office for further information.