Subsection (10), which is where the leverage is

The exception turns a non-binding opinion into a costs risk:

“(a) As used in this Subsection (10), ‘qualifying conditions’ means: (i) the office issues an advisory opinion described in this section; (ii) the same issue that is the subject of the advisory opinion is subsequently litigated in court; and (iii) the court rules in favor of the same party as the advisory opinion in a final judgment. (b) If the qualifying conditions are met, the court may award the substantially prevailing party: (i) reasonable attorney fees and court costs relating to the development of the cause of action from the date the office delivers the advisory opinion to the date of the court's resolution; and (ii) if the court finds that the opposing party knowingly and intentionally violated the law governing the cause of action, a civil penalty of up to $5,000.”

The fee clock starts on the day the opinion is delivered. A party that receives an unfavourable opinion, litigates anyway and loses is exposed to the other side's fees from that date forward, plus a penalty of up to $5,000 where the violation was knowing and intentional.

The boundaries of what it will decide

Three limits recur in the opinions themselves.

Statute only, never the documents. The office analyses alleged violations of state statute and does not interpret governing documents. That distinction decides a surprising share of requests: whether a covenant means what an owner thinks it means is not a question the office answers.

One year. A jurisdictional time bar at § 13-79-104(2)(a)(iii) shuts out older conduct. In Advisory Opinion 2026-03 the office declined part of a request on exactly that footing: “The Office lacks jurisdiction to address alleged procedural defects from 2024 as they occurred more than one year prior to the request.”³

No representation, and no testimony. Section 13-79-103(2) provides that neither the office nor its attorneys may represent any party, and that “No attorney of the office may be compelled to testify in a civil action filed concerning the subject matter of any review or advisory opinion arranged through the office.”

Arbitration cannot be put in front of it

Section 13-79-104(4)(b), as amended in the 2026 session:

“An association of unit owners or an association of lot owners may not require that a person engage in binding arbitration before requesting an advisory opinion from the office.”

A declaration's arbitration clause therefore cannot be used to keep a dispute away from the office. The request itself has to come before litigation or binding arbitration begins — § 13-79-104(1)(b) allows it “at any time before the commencement of: (i) an action in a court with jurisdiction; or (ii) binding arbitration.”

Our Utah mediation and dispute resolution page sets out how this sits alongside the Utah Uniform Arbitration Act and the permissive condominium arbitration provision at § 57-8-38.

The filing fee, and the penalty for abusing the process

Requesting an opinion carries a $150 fee, made explicitly nonrefundable by S.B. 122 of the 2026 session. The office can also act against a bad-faith filer: under § 13-79-104(8), where it determines a person knowingly filed a false or fraudulent request, it “shall prohibit that person from filing a complaint with the office for two years” and “may impose a civil penalty of up to $1,000.”

What the opinions are actually about

Records and financial disclosure dominate. Parking, reserves and special assessments, architectural review, rental restrictions and meeting procedure follow. Several turn on a single word in a bylaw: in Advisory Opinion 2025-09 (Elliott v. Padre Lakes Townhomes Association, December 8, 2025) the office read the bylaws' word “may” as permissive under § 68-3-12(1)(g) and held that “the Association acted within its authority by declining to use mail ballots and instead holding the election at the annual meeting.”⁴

Most opinions find no violation. That is itself information: the published set is the closest thing Utah has to a running account of where the statutory lines actually fall.

What to watch next

The office convened a working group in April 2026 — its director, the governor's housing adviser, and five legislators among them — running a statewide listening tour through the rest of 2026 on transparency, reserve funding, dispute resolution, registration and fee structures, with recommendations aimed at the 2027 General Session.⁵ The session opens in January 2027.