1.  "Not for official publication" means this is an unpublished opinion.  Prior to 2002, Utah prohibited citation of unpublished opinions and deemed them to have no precedential value.  The Utah Supreme Court struck down the no citation rule, holding that all decisions of the court of appeals are binding upon lower courts and may be relied upon by parties to the extent that they “are useful, authoritative[,] and persuasive[].”  Grand County v. Rogers, 44 P.3d 734, 738 (Utah 2002).  Utah Code of Jud. Admin R. 4-508 use to state that “Unpublished opinions, orders and judgments have no precedential value and shall not be cited or used in the courts of this state, except for purposes of applying the doctrine of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.”  That Rule has been repealed and no longer exists.

The Court of Appeals has stopped issuing "Unpublished Decisions" as of December 31, 2010.

As of 2018, Rule 30(f) of Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure states:

(f)  Citation of decisions.  Published decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, and unpublished decisions of the Court of Appeals issued on or after October 1, 1998, may be cited as precedent in all courts of the State.  Other unpublished decisions may also be cited, so long as all parties and the court are supplied with accurate copies at the time all such decisions are first cited.

2.Capital Improvements.  In this case, CC&Rs required a vote of owners for capital improvements costing more than $3,000.  The court, citing Bettinger v. Bettinger, noted that, "Capital improvements are 'betterments of a long lasting nature which add to the capital value of the property.'"  The court stated that repairs made to the swimming pool and clubhouse "qualify as capital improvements because they replaced deteriorating parts of the structures with the effect of increasing the worth of the facilities.  As they now stand, the facilities are rejuvenated and improved." 

The court does not get into an analysis of its decision or relate the facts behind the decision (as it is a "memorandum decision").  The court in Bettinger defined capital improvements as improvements adding to the value of or enhancing the marketability of a home in the context of a contemplated sale or appraisal of a home.  That court distinguished capital improvements from maintenance improvements, a distinction that was important in that case because the defendant did not benefit materially from maintenance improvements but did from capital improvements. 

That distinction is disregarded in this case.  The court in this case defined what a typical person would think was a definition of maintenance improvements, "repairs made to the swimming pool and clubhouse . . . replaced deteriorating parts of the structures with the effect of increasing the worth of the facilities. As they now stand, the facilities are rejuvenated and improved."  If this definition were used in a homeowner association context, virtually every maintenance item would be a capital improvement.  Because of this problem (including the lack of analysis and facts), it would be a mistake to rely on this case as any sort of precedent for defining "capital improvement" in a homeowner association context.

For HOAs, a different definition is needed, one that gives associations flexibility to address the changing needs of the community as well as changing construction materials.  Thus, a capital improvement should be defined as (i) any significant new common area amenity or (ii) substantial discretionary improvement to an existing common area amenity.