Can Utah homeowners associations collect assessments despite defective founding documents? Hi-Country Estates v. Mountaintop Explained

In Hi-Country Estates Homeowners Association v. Mountaintop Properties, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether a homeowners association can collect assessments when its founding documents were allegedly signed by someone who lacked authority over most of the affected property.

Background and Facts

Charles Lewton incorporated the Hi-Country Estates HOA in 1973, signing protective covenants that included approximately 2,000 acres near Herriman, Utah. However, evidence later surfaced suggesting Lewton owned less than one percent of the property he included within the HOA boundaries. Mountaintop Properties owned a 50 percent interest in Lot 90, which was included in the HOA. The HOA had assessed Lot 90 since at least 1983, and the property owner initially paid assessments for years before stopping payments in 2011.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the HOA possessed authority to levy assessments despite alleged defects in its founding documents. Mountaintop argued the governing documents were void ab initio because Lewton lacked authority to encumber property he did not own, making them incapable of ratification. The HOA contended that any defects had been cured through member ratification over decades.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court held that restrictive covenants recorded without the affected landowner’s signature are voidable, not absolutely void, and therefore capable of ratification. Applying the rationale from Swan Creek Village Homeowners Ass’n v. Warne, the court found the HOA members had collectively ratified the association’s authority through decades of conduct, including paying assessments, participating in meetings, and treating the HOA as a legitimate governing entity. Mountaintop’s own conduct—including paying assessments for years and signing a 2015 petition acknowledging HOA membership—demonstrated ratification.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that collective conduct over time can cure defects in HOA founding documents. Property owners cannot participate in an association for decades, then challenge its fundamental authority. The court emphasized that where governing documents have been publicly recorded and relied upon for extended periods, the reliance interests of hundreds of other owners may be “especially substantial.” Practitioners should advise clients to raise challenges to HOA authority promptly rather than after years of acquiescence.