Until recently a homeowner in a dispute with a board had two options: give in, or hire a lawyer. Utah added a third in 2025. The Office of the Homeowners' Association Ombudsman sits in the Department of Commerce and issues written advisory opinions on association disputes for a $150 filing fee. It is a real avenue and it is worth knowing about. It is also much narrower than the name suggests, and most of the complaints people want to bring are ones it is required to turn away.
This page describes what the statute says the office does. It is not legal advice. If your dispute is large, an attorney is still an attorney. One citation note before anything else: more than one online summary gives the wrong chapter number for this office. It is Utah Code Title 13, Chapter 79.
What the office is
The office was created in the 2025 general session by H.B. 217, Laws of Utah 2025, Chapter 226, enacting Utah Code Title 13, Chapter 79, sections 13-79-101 through 13-79-104, effective May 7, 2025. It launched in September 2025 and is housed in the Department of Commerce. The phone number is (801) 530-6670, Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Beyond opinions, § 13-79-103(4) requires the office to publish on its website a list of the statutes that affect owners and associations, a set of frequently asked questions, and plain-language educational materials covering rights under both the Condominium Ownership Act and the Community Association Act, and to direct callers to those resources. Since the 2026 amendments it must also make each advisory opinion it issues public. That last change is the useful one for a homeowner, because it means you can read how the office has actually decided a question before you file your own.
Two limits on the people who work there, both worth knowing before you call. Under § 13-79-103(2) the office's attorneys may not represent any party and may not be compelled to testify, and § 13-79-103(6) says no attorney-client relationship is created. They are not your lawyer and they will tell you so.
What it will not take, which is the part that matters
Section 13-79-103(4)(a) limits advisory opinions to "issues relating to a violation of a state statute." Then § 13-79-103(5) draws the line hard: "The office may not provide any service that requires interpreting the governing documents of an association of lot owners or the governing documents of an association of unit owners, including determining whether a provision of the governing documents is reasonable."
Read that twice, because it decides whether your complaint is worth a filing fee. If your question is whether a board followed a statute, the office can answer it. If your question is what your CC&Rs mean, or whether a design guideline is fair, it cannot, and it will say so in writing. Section 13-79-104(7)(b) goes further: the office "shall issue a written statement declining to review a request, if the request deals solely with a contractual dispute."
So sort your grievance before you write it. "They denied my plan and the letter does not state the provision they relied on" is a § 57-8a-109(4) question and it is in bounds. "They will not let me use my own plumber" is a § 57-8a-218(22)(c)(iii) or § 57-8-8.1(13)(b)(ii) question and it is in bounds. "The rock color rule is ridiculous" is a governing-document question and it is out of bounds, no matter how right you are.
- In bounds: a denial letter that does not meet the statutory content requirement.
- In bounds: a rule that restricts you to the association's vendor list.
- In bounds: a records request the association did not fill inside the statutory window.
- In bounds: an association requiring turf where the statute says it may not.
- Out of bounds: whether a design guideline is reasonable.
- Out of bounds: what an ambiguous clause in your declaration means.
- Out of bounds: a dispute that is purely contractual.
The process, start to finish
Everything in the table below comes from § 13-79-104 as it currently stands. Two items deserve emphasis. The exhaustion requirement is real: you must first use the dispute resolution procedures in your own governing documents and describe in the request how you did it. And the one-year clock runs from when you knew or should have known of the alleged act, with the request itself required to state facts showing it is timely.
| Element | Rule | Cite |
|---|---|---|
| Who may file | A lot owner, a unit owner, or either kind of association | 13-79-104(1) |
| Scope | Compliance with Title 57 Chapter 8, Chapter 8a, or other applicable state statutes | 13-79-104(1)(a) |
| When | Any time before a court action or binding arbitration begins | 13-79-104(1)(b) |
| Filing fee | $150, nonrefundable | 13-79-104(2)(a)(ii) |
| Hardship | The office may establish policies for partial fee waivers | 13-79-104(3) |
| Deadline | No later than one year after you knew or should have known of the act | 13-79-104(2)(a)(iii) |
| Contents | Describe the act and its impact on you; you may allege actual damages | 13-79-104(2)(a)(iv), (2)(b) |
| Exhaustion | Use the governing documents' dispute procedures first and describe how | 13-79-104(4)(a), (4)(c) |
| Arbitration | An association may not require binding arbitration before you request an opinion | 13-79-104(4)(b) |
| Output | A written opinion with a statement of facts and law, copied to all necessary parties | 13-79-104(6) |
| Declination | Not ripe, not exhausted, outside statutory scope, or solely contractual | 13-79-104(7) |
| Bad faith | A two-year filing ban and a civil penalty of up to $1,000 | 13-79-104(8)(a) |
| Repeat filings | After three declined, unexhausted or contractual requests, you need the Commerce executive director's authorization to file again | 13-79-104(8)(b) |
What an opinion is actually worth
Section 13-79-104(9) says an advisory opinion is neither binding on any party to a dispute nor admissible as evidence in it. On its own, that sounds like a $150 letter. The teeth are in the next subsection.
Under § 13-79-104(10), if the office issues an opinion, the same issue is later litigated, and the court rules for the same party the opinion favored, then the court may award the substantially prevailing party reasonable attorney fees and court costs relating to development of the cause of action, running from the date the opinion was delivered to the date of resolution. And if the court finds the opposing party "knowingly and intentionally violated the law," it may impose a civil penalty of up to $5,000.
That figure changed recently, and stale summaries are still circulating the old one. The earlier structure accrued a daily amount; the 2026 amendments replaced it with the flat cap of up to $5,000, effective May 6, 2026. If you read a page quoting a per-day number, it is out of date.
The practical value is leverage, not enforcement. An opinion that says the association violated a statute converts a board's cost of continuing to a fee-exposure question. Most boards would rather fix the letter than test it.
How long it takes
There is no statutory deadline for the office to issue an opinion, so nobody should promise you one. What exists is published record. Advisory Opinion No. 2026-19, involving the Canyon Crossing Condominium Owners Association in Salt Lake City, was filed February 16, 2026 and issued May 18, 2026. Roughly three months.
That opinion is also the best single illustration of what the office does with a plumbing dispute, and it is worth reading if you own a condominium. A pipe broke in a common-area utility stack and damaged a unit. The office held that the association had to repair the broken common-area line under § 57-8-7(7), that the association's property policy was primary, and that the association had to reimburse the owner for payments made under his personal policy that its policy should have covered. It also held that the owner still owed his proportional share of the association's deductible, and that the diagnostic costs stayed with the homeowner.
Notice what the office did there. Every holding is anchored to a statute. It did not decide whether the association's conduct was fair. It decided what Chapter 8 required. That is the shape of every opinion it can issue.
The registry, and the one thing it does
The same office administers Utah's association registry. Associations register with the Department of Commerce and renew annually, and registration now includes a statement of whether the association imposes a reinvestment fee or a transfer fee, under § 57-8-13.1(3)(f) for condominiums and the parallel provision at § 57-8a-105.
The consequence of letting registration lapse is not a fine. It is that while an association is out of compliance, no lien may arise and no existing lien may be enforced. If your association is chasing you over an assessment lien, its registration status is a fact worth checking. The registry is searchable at services.commerce.utah.gov/hoa.
One correction to a common assumption: the registry holds contact information. It does not hold your governing documents. For those, use the records request your own statute gives you, § 57-8a-227 for a planned community or § 57-8-17 for a condominium, which requires the association to comply within 10 business days, or go to the Washington County Recorder for the recorded declaration and plats.
One more place the office shows up, which most buyers never notice. Under § 57-8-6.1, before a condominium unit is sold to an independent third party the grantor must give the buyer a copy of the recorded governing documents and a link to the ombudsman's educational materials under § 13-79-103(4), before closing, and the association must supply those to the grantor on request. Section 57-8a-105.1 is the planned community twin. If you bought recently and never got either one, ask your title company where they went.
What we’d do at your house
If your dispute is really about who owns a pipe, we will tell you that and show you the section, because that question has an answer before anyone files anything.
We put our scope, the price and the schedule in writing in a form a board can read at a meeting.
If a board tells you the work needs its own vendor, we hand you the statute and the association's document side by side and let you decide what to do with them.
We will not tell you your association is breaking the law. We will tell you which section applies and suggest you confirm it with an attorney.
We do not file anything on your behalf, and we are not a party to your dispute.
When an association's decision is the only thing holding up your job, we will keep the job on the calendar rather than start it and argue later.
Sources
What this page says comes from the documents below, read in full. It describes them. It is not legal advice. Confirm with your association, your city, or an attorney before you act.
- Utah Code Title 13, Chapter 79, created by H.B. 217, Laws of Utah 2025, Chapter 226, effective May 7, 2025 02-research/03-hoa-corpus.md §1.1; briefs.txt brief 05
- Utah Code § 13-79-103(2), (4), (5), (6), duties and limits 03-hoa-corpus.md §1.2
- Utah Code § 13-79-104(1) through (10), the advisory opinion process 03-hoa-corpus.md §1.3 and §1.4
- Civil penalty capped at up to $5,000, effective May 6, 2026, replacing the prior daily structure 03-hoa-corpus.md §1.4
- Advisory Opinion No. 2026-19, Canyon Crossing Condominium Owners Association, filed February 16, 2026, issued May 18, 2026 03-hoa-corpus.md §1.5 and §2.5
- Utah Code § 57-8-7(7) and § 57-8-43, applied in Advisory Opinion 2026-19 03-hoa-corpus.md §2.5 and §2.6
- Registry, lien consequence of noncompliance, § 57-8-13.1 and § 57-8a-105 03-hoa-corpus.md §1.6 and §2.3
- Utah Code § 57-8a-227 and § 57-8-17, 10 business day records deadline 03-hoa-corpus.md §4.6
- Utah Code § 57-8a-109(4), § 57-8a-218(22)(c)(iii), § 57-8-8.1(13)(b)(ii), used as in-bounds examples 03-hoa-corpus.md §4.1, §2.2, §2.4
- Office launch September 2025, Department of Commerce 03-hoa-corpus.md §1.1
- Utah Code § 57-8-6.1 and § 57-8a-105.1, pre-sale disclosure of governing documents and ombudsman materials 03-hoa-corpus.md §4.6