Property Manager Requirements
HB0337 revises Utah’s Real Estate Licensing and Practices Act to create a new, separate licensing framework for property managers. The bill defines “property manager,” requires licensure before a person may engage in or advertise property management, and directs the Real Estate Commission and Division of Real Estate to establish qualifications, licensing procedures, fees, education, and exam requirements. It also allows holders of active broker, associate broker, or sales agent licenses to obtain a property manager license without repeating certain education and testing requirements.
The bill narrows and clarifies what property managers may do. It authorizes property managers to fill out forms, contracts, and lease agreements related to renting and managing real property, and it specifies permitted activities such as soliciting referrals, paying finder’s fees, contracting for services, paying bills under a management agreement, and advertising rental properties. At the same time, it repeals older provisions that had allowed certain individuals to act as property managers under prior arrangements and replaces them with a more formal licensing structure.
HB0337 changes Utah Code provisions governing real estate licensing by adding property managers as a licensed category under Title 61, Chapter 2f, and by updating related definitions, exemptions, registration rules, and enforcement provisions. It creates new sections governing property manager licensure, authority to complete documents, and operational rules, while also requiring property managers to associate with a real estate trust account unless they maintain a qualifying security bond covering at least 30% of estimated client funds. The bill also expands the commission’s rulemaking authority over property management and makes conforming changes to licensing, renewal, and background-check requirements. The effective date is January 1, 2026.
The overall sentiment appears strongly favorable and largely noncontroversial. The bill advanced unanimously in both chambers and in committee, with 14-0 votes in House committee, 71-0 on House third reading, 4-0 in Senate committee, 22-0 on Senate second reading, 23-0 on Senate third reading, and final House concurrence at 71-0. The voting pattern suggests broad agreement that the bill provides needed regulation and clarification for the property management industry.
No major opposition is reflected in the available record, and there are no committee transcript snippets indicating substantive debate. The main policy issues embedded in the bill are the scope of activities a property manager may perform, whether property managers should be required to use trust accounts, and the new licensure and education requirements. The bill addresses those concerns by creating exemptions for owners, family members, certain assistants, maintenance/bookkeeping-only workers, and some managers in related settings, while also allowing a security-bond alternative to the trust-account requirement.