Can courts issue advisory opinions to support attorney fee claims in moot HOA cases? Barton Woods Homeowners Association v. Stewart Explained

In Barton Woods Homeowners Association v. Stewart, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a district court should issue an advisory opinion on covenant interpretation when the underlying dispute has become moot.

Background and Facts

Barton Woods Homeowners Association sued Dena Stewart for violating CC&Rs by making unauthorized cosmetic alterations to her property. Stewart defended on grounds that the CC&Rs did not authorize regulation of her alterations, or alternatively, that the HOA had abandoned enforcement authority. Stewart also filed counterclaims based on her property ownership and alleged the HOA filed an improper lis pendens that prevented her from selling at market value, ultimately forcing her into bankruptcy and foreclosure.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue became whether the court could rule on CC&R interpretation after Stewart lost the property through foreclosure and the new owner corrected the violations. Stewart argued she needed a favorable interpretation to support attorney fee claims and preserve potential future wrongful proceedings claims, even though she conceded losing standing on her counterclaims due to no longer owning property.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, emphasizing that courts cannot issue advisory opinions on moot questions. Once Stewart no longer owned the property and the violations were corrected, the underlying controversy was resolved. The court noted that Stewart never properly pleaded her damages claims regarding the lis pendens and bankruptcy, instead raising them only in briefing. Under Utah’s pleading requirements, claims must be restricted to grounds set forth in the complaint and cannot be amended through memoranda.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces the mootness doctrine and prohibition against advisory opinions, even when such rulings might support fee awards. Practitioners must ensure all potential claims are properly pleaded initially, as unpleaded theories cannot be pursued through later briefing or argument.