Case Summary
| Case ID | 25F-H041-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2025-06-05 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Velva Moses-Thompson |
| Outcome | partial |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $500.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Jeremy R. Whittaker | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | The Val Vista Lakes Community Association | Counsel | Josh Bolen, Esq. |
Alleged Violations
Article IV, Section 3 of the Bylaws
Outcome Summary
Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party as Respondent admitted violating Article IV, Section 3 of the Bylaws. Respondent was ordered to refund the $500 filing fee and comply with the Bylaws. However, the request for a civil penalty was denied because Petitioner failed to meet their burden of proof.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet its burden to establish that a civil penalty should be imposed.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to require Board Candidate disclosure of familial ties and conflicts of interest.
Respondent admitted that the 2023 Board Candidate Application form failed to comply with Article IV, Section 3 of the Bylaws by not requiring disclosure of familial ties, business, or conflicts of interest, as required for Board candidates.
Orders: Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner $500.00 (filing fee refund) within thirty days and directed to comply with Article IV, Section 3 of the Bylaws. Civil penalty denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
- Article IV, Section 3 of the Bylaws
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
25F-H041-REL Decision – 1297701.pdf
25F-H041-REL Decision – 1297767.pdf
25F-H041-REL Decision – 1301723.pdf
25F-H041-REL Decision – 1301746.pdf
25F-H041-REL Decision – 1304724.pdf
25F-H041-REL Decision – 1314414.pdf
Briefing: Case No. 25F-H041-REL, Whittaker v. The Val Vista Community Association
Executive Summary
This briefing synthesizes the key events, arguments, and outcomes of the administrative case Jeremy R. Whittaker v. The Val Vista Community Association (No. 25F-H041-REL), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The central dispute involved the Association’s failure to comply with its own bylaws during its 2023 Board of Directors election.
The Petitioner, Jeremy R. Whittaker, alleged that the Association violated Article IV, Section 3 of its bylaws by using a candidate application form that did not require the disclosure of familial ties or conflicts of interest. This issue became prominent when two board candidates, Diana Ebertshauser and Brodie Hurtado, did not disclose their familial relationship with a partner at the law firm hired to count election votes until after the election.
The Association admitted to the violation, which significantly narrowed the legal proceedings. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Velva Moses-Thompson focused the case exclusively on determining whether a civil penalty against the Association was warranted. Consequently, several motions and requests from the Petitioner to broaden the scope—including a motion to consolidate cases, attempts to argue attorney misconduct, and subpoenas for numerous witnesses—were denied as irrelevant to the single issue at hand.
In the final decision issued on June 5, 2025, the ALJ found that while the Association had indeed violated its bylaws, the Petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to justify a civil penalty. Despite the denial of a penalty, the Petitioner was declared the “prevailing party.” The Association was ordered to refund the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee and to ensure future compliance with its bylaws.
Case Overview and Parties
Detail
Description
Case Number
25F-H041-REL
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Petitioner
Jeremy R. Whittaker
Respondent
The Val Vista Community Association
Respondent’s Counsel
Josh Bolen, Esq. of CHDB Law, LLP
Core Allegation and Admitted Violation
Bylaw at Issue: Article IV, Section 3
The petition centered on a violation of the Association’s bylaws governing the election of its Board of Directors. The relevant section, Article IV, Section 3, mandates specific disclosures from candidates:
“Each candidate for the Board of Directors shall fill out an application which at minimum will require the candidate to disclose any familial, business or ownership relationships with other Directors or candidates; any current or anticipated conflicts of interest with the Association… and whether they have previously served on the on the Board.”
Nature of the Violation
The core of the case was the Association’s use of a non-compliant application form for its 2023 Board election.
• Deficient Application: The 2023 Board Candidate Application form failed to require candidates to disclose familial ties or other conflicts of interest as stipulated by the bylaws.
• Undisclosed Conflict: Board candidates Diana Ebertshauser and Brodie Hurtado did not disclose their familial ties to a partner at the law firm Carpenter Hazelwood. This disclosure was only made after the election, in which the firm was asked to count the votes.
• Respondent’s Admission: The Val Vista Community Association filed a written answer admitting that the candidate application forms supplied by the 2023 Board were not in compliance with Article IV, Section 3. This admission eliminated the need to litigate the facts of the violation itself.
Key Procedural Rulings and Hearing Scope
Following the Association’s admission, ALJ Velva Moses-Thompson strictly limited the scope of the proceedings to the single question of whether a civil penalty was appropriate. This focus resulted in several key rulings that shaped the case.
Narrowing the Hearing’s Scope
During the May 16, 2025 hearing, the ALJ explicitly defined the legal boundaries:
“The only way for the association to violate this bylaw is to fail to require the candidate to disclose any familial uh conflicts of interest. So that is the sole issue for this hearing… I can’t make decisions just about anything, but it’s specifically related to the alleged violation.”
The Petitioner’s attempts to introduce other issues were consistently disallowed. During his opening statement, Mr. Whittaker began to argue for sanctions against the Respondent’s attorneys for alleged discovery violations and harassment. The ALJ interrupted, stating, “these may be important and relevant issues, but not to the alleged violation today,” and clarified that “the attorneys are not the association.”
Denied Motions and Subpoenas
Several requests by the Petitioner were denied on the grounds of relevance to the narrowly defined issue:
• Motion to Consolidate (Denied April 24, 2025): The Petitioner’s motion to consolidate docket No. 25F-H041-REL with a separate case, No. 25F-H046-REL, was denied.
• Subpoena for Laura Tannery (Denied May 6, 2025): A subpoena request for Ms. Tannery was denied because the “Petitioner has not demonstrated the relevance of Ms. Tannery’s testimony to the issue of whether a civil penalty should be imposed.”
• Mass Subpoenas Quashed (May 13, 2025): Subpoenas issued on April 28, 2025, for eight individuals were quashed following a motion from the Respondent. The individuals were Brodie Hurtado, Diana Ebertshauser, Kevin McPhillips, Jonathan Ebertshauser, Esq., Joshua Bolen, Esq., Rob Actis, David Watson, and Laura Tannery.
In contrast, the Respondent’s motion to vacate the hearing was denied on April 24, 2025, with the ALJ affirming that a hearing was necessary to rule on the civil penalty question.
Final Decision and Outcome
The Administrative Law Judge Decision, issued on June 5, 2025, provided a conclusive resolution to the matter.
Ruling on Standing
The Respondent had moved to dismiss the petition, arguing the Petitioner lacked standing because he only became a property owner in June 2024, after the 2023 violation occurred. The ALJ rejected this argument, concluding that the Petitioner had standing because he “was a member of Respondent at the time that the petition was filed.”
Ruling on the Violation and Civil Penalty
• Violation Confirmed: The decision reiterated that “Respondent has admitted that it violated Article IV, Section 3 of Respondent’s Bylaws.”
• Civil Penalty Denied: The ALJ determined that a civil penalty was “not appropriate in this matter.” The official reasoning was that the “Petitioner failed to meet its burden to establish that a civil penalty should be imposed” and “did not present relevant evidence” at the hearing to support such a penalty.
Final Orders
The ALJ’s order contained three key directives:
1. Prevailing Party: The Petitioner, Jeremy R. Whittaker, was deemed the prevailing party.
2. Reimbursement: The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner his $500.00 filing fee within thirty days.
3. Future Compliance: The Respondent was directed to comply with Article IV, Section 3 of its bylaws in all future elections.
All other forms of requested relief were denied.
Timeline of Key Events
The Val Vista Community Association holds its Board election using non-compliant candidate applications.
June 2024
Jeremy R. Whittaker becomes a property owner in the Val Vista Lakes development.
May 20, 2019
Petitioner files a single-issue petition with the Department of Real Estate (as recorded in the final decision).
April 24, 2025
ALJ denies Respondent’s motion to vacate the hearing and Petitioner’s motion to consolidate cases.
April 28, 2025
The tribunal signs subpoenas for eight individuals.
May 6, 2025
A sanctions hearing is scheduled for May 16. The Petitioner’s subpoena request for Laura Tannery is denied.
May 9, 2025
Deadline for parties to provide information regarding the 2023 election and discovery of the conflict.
May 13, 2025
ALJ grants Respondent’s motion to quash all eight subpoenas.
May 16, 2025
A hearing is held to determine the appropriateness of a civil penalty.
June 5, 2025
The final Administrative Law Judge Decision is issued.
{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “25F-H041-REL”,
“case_title”: “Jeremy R. Whittaker vs. The Val Vista Lakes Community Association”,
“decision_date”: “2025-06-05”,
“alj_name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“questions”: [
{
“question”: “Can I file a petition against my HOA for a violation that occurred before I became a homeowner?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes. You have standing to file a petition as long as you are a member of the association at the time you file the paperwork, even if the violation happened prior to your ownership.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ rejected the HOA’s argument that the homeowner lacked standing because they were not a member at the time of the alleged violation. The ruling established that standing is determined by membership status at the time of filing.”,
“alj_quote”: “The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Petitioner had standing to file the petition. Petitioner was a member of Respondent at the time that the petition was filed.”,
“legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.01”,
“topic_tags”: [
“Standing”,
“Homeowner Rights”,
“Procedure”
]
},
{
“question”: “If the HOA admits they violated the bylaws, will they automatically be required to pay a civil penalty?”,
“short_answer”: “No. An admission of guilt does not automatically result in a monetary fine. The homeowner must still provide evidence proving that a penalty is necessary or appropriate.”,
“detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA admitted that their candidate application forms violated the bylaws. However, the judge ruled that no civil penalty was appropriate because the petitioner did not present sufficient evidence to justify imposing one.”,
“alj_quote”: “Respondent has admitted that it violated Article IV, Section 3 of Respondent’s Bylaws. However Petitioner failed to meet its burden to establish that a civil penalty should be imposed in the above-entitled matter.”,
“legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“Civil Penalties”,
“Violations”,
“Burden of Proof”
]
},
{
“question”: “Does the HOA have to require board candidates to disclose conflicts of interest or family ties?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes, if the association’s bylaws specifically require such disclosures in the candidate application.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The decision affirmed that the HOA violated its bylaws by failing to require candidates to disclose familial relationships. The bylaws stated that the application ‘at minimum’ must require disclosure of familial, business, or ownership relationships.”,
“alj_quote”: “Each candidate for the Board of Directors shall fill out an application which at minimum will require the candidate to disclose any familial, business or ownership relationships with other Directors or candidates…”,
“legal_basis”: “Bylaws Article IV, Section 3”,
“topic_tags”: [
“Elections”,
“Board of Directors”,
“Conflicts of Interest”
]
},
{
“question”: “If I win my case against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes. If the homeowner is deemed the prevailing party, the judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.”,
“detailed_answer”: “Because the petitioner prevailed in establishing that a violation occurred (via the HOA’s admission), the ALJ ordered the HOA to pay the $500 filing fee directly to the petitioner within 30 days.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.”,
“legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.01”,
“topic_tags”: [
“Fees”,
“Remedies”,
“Prevailing Party”
]
},
{
“question”: “What is the standard of proof required to win a hearing against an HOA?”,
“short_answer”: “The standard is a ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ meaning the claim is more likely true than not.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The petitioner bears the burden of proving the violation. This does not require removing all doubt, but providing evidence that has ‘the most convincing force’ to incline a fair mind to one side.”,
“alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated… by a preponderance of the evidence.”,
“legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“Legal Standards”,
“Evidence”,
“Procedure”
]
},
{
“question”: “What happens if the HOA used invalid forms for a past election?”,
“short_answer”: “The judge may order the HOA to comply with the bylaws for future actions, even if they do not impose a fine for the past violation.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ordered the HOA to comply with the specific bylaw section regarding candidate applications going forward, ensuring future elections meet the disclosure requirements.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent is directed to comply with Article IV, Section 3 of Respondent’s Bylaws.”,
“legal_basis”: “Order”,
“topic_tags”: [
“Remedies”,
“Compliance”,
“Elections”
]
}
]
}
{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “25F-H041-REL”,
“case_title”: “Jeremy R. Whittaker vs. The Val Vista Lakes Community Association”,
“decision_date”: “2025-06-05”,
“alj_name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“questions”: [
{
“question”: “Can I file a petition against my HOA for a violation that occurred before I became a homeowner?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes. You have standing to file a petition as long as you are a member of the association at the time you file the paperwork, even if the violation happened prior to your ownership.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ rejected the HOA’s argument that the homeowner lacked standing because they were not a member at the time of the alleged violation. The ruling established that standing is determined by membership status at the time of filing.”,
“alj_quote”: “The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Petitioner had standing to file the petition. Petitioner was a member of Respondent at the time that the petition was filed.”,
“legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.01”,
“topic_tags”: [
“Standing”,
“Homeowner Rights”,
“Procedure”
]
},
{
“question”: “If the HOA admits they violated the bylaws, will they automatically be required to pay a civil penalty?”,
“short_answer”: “No. An admission of guilt does not automatically result in a monetary fine. The homeowner must still provide evidence proving that a penalty is necessary or appropriate.”,
“detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA admitted that their candidate application forms violated the bylaws. However, the judge ruled that no civil penalty was appropriate because the petitioner did not present sufficient evidence to justify imposing one.”,
“alj_quote”: “Respondent has admitted that it violated Article IV, Section 3 of Respondent’s Bylaws. However Petitioner failed to meet its burden to establish that a civil penalty should be imposed in the above-entitled matter.”,
“legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“Civil Penalties”,
“Violations”,
“Burden of Proof”
]
},
{
“question”: “Does the HOA have to require board candidates to disclose conflicts of interest or family ties?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes, if the association’s bylaws specifically require such disclosures in the candidate application.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The decision affirmed that the HOA violated its bylaws by failing to require candidates to disclose familial relationships. The bylaws stated that the application ‘at minimum’ must require disclosure of familial, business, or ownership relationships.”,
“alj_quote”: “Each candidate for the Board of Directors shall fill out an application which at minimum will require the candidate to disclose any familial, business or ownership relationships with other Directors or candidates…”,
“legal_basis”: “Bylaws Article IV, Section 3”,
“topic_tags”: [
“Elections”,
“Board of Directors”,
“Conflicts of Interest”
]
},
{
“question”: “If I win my case against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes. If the homeowner is deemed the prevailing party, the judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.”,
“detailed_answer”: “Because the petitioner prevailed in establishing that a violation occurred (via the HOA’s admission), the ALJ ordered the HOA to pay the $500 filing fee directly to the petitioner within 30 days.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.”,
“legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.01”,
“topic_tags”: [
“Fees”,
“Remedies”,
“Prevailing Party”
]
},
{
“question”: “What is the standard of proof required to win a hearing against an HOA?”,
“short_answer”: “The standard is a ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ meaning the claim is more likely true than not.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The petitioner bears the burden of proving the violation. This does not require removing all doubt, but providing evidence that has ‘the most convincing force’ to incline a fair mind to one side.”,
“alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated… by a preponderance of the evidence.”,
“legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“Legal Standards”,
“Evidence”,
“Procedure”
]
},
{
“question”: “What happens if the HOA used invalid forms for a past election?”,
“short_answer”: “The judge may order the HOA to comply with the bylaws for future actions, even if they do not impose a fine for the past violation.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ordered the HOA to comply with the specific bylaw section regarding candidate applications going forward, ensuring future elections meet the disclosure requirements.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent is directed to comply with Article IV, Section 3 of Respondent’s Bylaws.”,
“legal_basis”: “Order”,
“topic_tags”: [
“Remedies”,
“Compliance”,
“Elections”
]
}
]
}
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Jeremy R. Whittaker (petitioner)
Appeared on behalf of himself
Respondent Side
- Josh Bolen (respondent attorney)
CHDB Law, LLP - Diana Ebertshauser (board member)
The Val Vista Community Association
Board candidate who failed to disclose familial ties; subpoena quashed - Brodie Hurtado (board member)
The Val Vista Community Association
Board candidate who failed to disclose familial ties; subpoena quashed
Neutral Parties
- Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
Administrative Law Judge - Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate - vnunez (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of Order transmission (listed by email handle) - djones (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of Order transmission (listed by email handle) - labril (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of Order transmission (listed by email handle) - mneat (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of Order transmission (listed by email handle) - lrecchia (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of Order transmission (listed by email handle) - gosborn (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of Order transmission (listed by email handle)
Other Participants
- Laura Tannery (witness)
Subpoena quashed/denied - Kevin McPhillips (witness)
Subpoena quashed - Jonathan Ebertshauser (attorney/witness)
Subpoena quashed - Rob Actis (witness)
Subpoena quashed - David Watson (witness)
Subpoena quashed
