Caution:  This section conflicts with another section and is possibly superseded.  See the footnote 2 below.  For the fee that may be charged, use Section 57-8a-311 (or possibly 57-8a-106) instead.

FN 1.  It is not clear why the term "unit" or "unit owner" is used here.  Neither "unit" nor "unit owner" are defined in this Act.

FN 2.  Two sections of the Act allow for obtaining a statement of unpaid assessments, this Section 57-8a-206, enacted in 2004, and Section 57-8a-311, enacted in 2011 (and a third for obtaining association payoff information needed in connection with the financing, refinancing, or closing of a sale of a lot, 57-8a-106).  The two are almost identical but there are a couple of key differences.

They both provide that an association must issue a written statement indicating any unpaid assessment with respect to a lot upon: (1) a written request of either "any unit owner" (57-8a-206) or "the lot owner" (57-8a-311), and (2) payment of a reasonable fee not to exceed either $10 (57-8a-206) or $25 (57-8a-311).  And, they both provide, in slightly but inconsequentially different language, that the written statement is conclusive or binding in favor of a person who relies on the written statement in good faith.

However, this Section 57-8a-206 also provides that unless the association complies with the request within 10 days, any unpaid assessment "is subordinate to a lien held by the person requesting the statement." (Note that a person that may request the statement is “any unit owner.”)

It is not clear why there are two different sections of the Act addressing the same issue with nearly identical language, with a third addressing very nearly the same issue (Section 57-8a-106).  A parallel statute for this statute (57-8a-206) does not exist in the Condo Act, yet parallel statutes for both 57-8a-311 and 57-8a-106 are in the Condo Act. 

Because 57-8a-311 was enacted after 57-8a-206, the more recently enacted statute applies because it represents the most recent expression of legislative intent with regard to the subject.  However, where two statutes would seem to apply to a set of circumstances, the court will prioritize giving effect to the later-enacted statute and then attempt to reconcile the other statute. Murray City v. Hall, 663 P.2d 1314, at 1319 (Utah 1983).  Accordingly, as to the fee that may be charged for a written statement of unpaid assessment (except to the extent the statement constitutes payoff information needed in connection with the financing, refinancing, or closing of a sale of a lot, in which case 57-8a-106 governs as the more specific provision), 57-8a-311 controls and a $25 fee is authorized, but subsection (2) of this Section 57-8a-206, also applies so that unless the association complies with the request within 10 days, any unpaid assessment "is subordinate to a lien held by the person requesting the statement."

FN 3.  Again, a person requesting the statement pursuant to Subsection (1)(a) is any "unit owner."  A "unit owner" is not defined in the Act, but presumably means "lot owner" because, while the 'presumption of consistent usage and meaningful variation' in interpreting statutes would require that the use of "unit" constitutes a meaningful variation when the legislature has a term with a well-established meaning at its disposal ("lot," which is a defined term and is in fact used in the very same sentence), but chooses to use a different word instead ("unit"), we presume the legislature meant that word to have a different meaning.  However, since it's difficult if not impossible to ascertain what lien a "unit" owner could hold that the unpaid assessment would become subordinate to and that the legislature could not possibly have intended that result, the 'presumption against absurd results' requires that we substitute "lot" for "unit."

------

See Similar: 

• Section 57-8a-106. Fee for providing payoff information needed at closing; 
• Section 57-8a-311. Statement from association's manager or board of unpaid assessment