Hello All,
I am an attorney here in Utah working with real estate investors. And I hope I was not the one being referred to... :)
Here's the short answer: Any person involved in the origination or making of a loan secured by a first position lien against a “dwelling” is engaged in the “business of residential mortgage loans” and is regulated under the Act, irrespective of whether the loan is a “hard money” loan, a commercial loan or a business loan (as opposed to a loan primarily for personal, family or household purposes). Under the Act, however, a “dwelling” appears to be limited only to residential-type property that actually is occupied or otherwise “used as a residence.” Of course, this position is not beyond argument. So, in other words, unconfirmed.
The longer answer, but still short, is that there are two problems with Utah's statute. First, the "use" argument (i.e., if the loan is not used for "personal, family or household use" then you don't need a license) seems to be (and mostly likely will) applied to "mortgage loan originators". These people already have a license so it's kind of moot. They essentially created an exception where there doesn't need to be one. So, why? We don't know. This is the exception that other states, and many federal interpretations, as Jeff S pointed out, have used to allow hard money and private lenders to make loans without a license. Utah has not taken, at least not by statute or court interpretation yet, that position.
The second problem is actually the term "dwelling" that is used in the statute as part of the licensing requirement. Here the term "dwelling" is defined as a home, condo, etc used as a "residence." (This is different than personal, household use) Like the "use" argument above, this has not been clarified by statute or by court interpretation. But, strictly speaking, if you're not loaning on a "dwelling" then you don't need a license. This is why most of my clients have covenants of "non-occupancy" and "agreement not to lease" in their loan docs to pass the liability onto the borrower in the event the property is ever occupied as a residence. This is the exception that most local lenders without licenses rely on. But not super solid ground to be sure.
Finally, the issue of enforcement is important. How aggressive is the DRE in enforcing this? Not very. Some big lenders have been around a very long time and are quite open and public in their advertising. The DRE always takes a very broad view of licensing. That's their job--to protect licensees and the public. They don't always win their case, however!! In fact, I've often seen them lose. So, just because they take a position doesn't mean they are right. That's what courts are for. I imagine they will take the position that what we call "hard money lenders" will need a license (simply because 15 years of experience with the DRE leads me to that conclusion, not because it's fact). Lenders have to be aware of that, and do they want to be the one to challenge a DRE position... On the other hand, there are strong "strict interpretation" arguments that a license is not required.
So, see short answer above.
Hope that helps.
Jeff