Jeremy R. Whittaker v. The Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Briefing Document: Administrative Legal Proceedings in Whittaker v. The Val Vista Lakes Community Association (No. 26F-H141-REL)

Executive Summary

This briefing document provides a detailed account and legal analysis of the administrative proceedings before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) and the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) regarding Docket No. 26F-H141-REL.

The case was initiated by Jeremy R. Whittaker (Petitioner) against The Val Vista Lakes Community Association (Respondent) following an alleged single-issue violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1804. Throughout the proceedings, the Respondent consistently failed to submit responses or answers to official state notifications. This pattern of non-responsiveness led to an administrative remand, an Order of Default deeming all allegations admitted, and a final administrative ruling ordering the Respondent to comply with state statute, reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee, and pay a $380.00 civil penalty to the State of Arizona.

Case Directory & Key Parties

Detailed Chronology of Events

“ [May 15, 2026] Petition Filed with ADRE │ [June 06, 2026] Petitioner tenders $500.00 filing fee │ [June 19, 2026] ADRE issues 1st HOA Notice of Petition (20-day response window) -> No Response │ [July 17, 2026] ADRE issues 2nd HOA Notice of Petition (Deadline: Aug 09, 2026) -> No Response │ [August 26, 2026] ADRE issues Notice of Hearing for Sept 30, 2026 before OAH │ [September 08, 2026] Petitioner submits Motion to Vacate / Remand │ [September 09, 2026] ALJ Jenna Clark issues Order Vacating Hearing (Remands to ADRE) │ [September 15, 2026] ADRE issues Order of Default (Petitioner deemed prevailing party) │ [September 25, 2026] Petitioner files Motion for Civil Penalties │ [September 28, 2026] Final Order Issued (Mandates compliance, $500 reimbursement, $380 civil penalty) “

Full Event Breakdown

• May 15, 2026: Petitioner files a single-issue Homeowners Association Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 and seeking an order in his favor along with civil penalties.
• June 06, 2026: Petitioner pays the required $500.00 filing fee to the Department.
• June 19, 2026: The Department sends the initial HOA Notice of Petition to Respondent, giving 20 days to respond and show cause why the petition should be dismissed. Mail is not returned as undeliverable, but Respondent fails to reply.
• July 17, 2026: The Department issues a second HOA Notice of Petition to Respondent setting a firm response deadline of August 09, 2026. Mail is again not returned as undeliverable, and Respondent fails to reply.
• August 26, 2026: The Department issues a Notice of Hearing, transferring the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing scheduled for September 30, 2026.
• September 08, 2026: Petitioner files a Motion to Vacate, requesting that the hearing be vacated and remanded back to the Department under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(E) due to Respondent's lack of response.
• September 09, 2026: ALJ Jenna Clark issues an Order Vacating Hearing pursuant to Ariz. Admin. Code R2-19-111(4) and remands the matter back to the Department under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(E).
• September 15, 2026: The Department issues an Order of Default against Respondent, finding that due to failure to file an Answer, all allegations in the Petition are deemed admitted, establishing Petitioner as the prevailing party.
• September 25, 2026: Petitioner files a Motion for Civil Penalties pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 32-2199.01(E) and 32-21990.02(A), requesting an order mandating compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1804, reimbursement of the $500.00 filing fee, and imposition of civil penalties.
• September 28, 2026: ALJ Jenna Clark signs the final Order establishing permanent compliance obligations, fee reimbursement, and financial sanctions against the Respondent.

Analysis of Key Legal Themes & Mechanisms

1. Respondent Non-Responsiveness and Administrative Default

A central operational theme of this case is the Respondent’s complete failure to participate in state administrative procedures. Despite two separate notices issued by the Arizona Department of Real Estate (June 19, 2026, and July 17, 2026) sent to multiple addresses (including management firm Community Asset Management LLC), the correspondence was never returned as undeliverable, and no response was ever submitted.

In this case, the Department entered an Order of Default on September 15, 2026 after Respondent failed to answer the notices. The final order records that the allegations were deemed admitted and Whittaker was deemed the prevailing party. That account describes the entered default in this proceeding; it does not establish that every missed deadline automatically and irreversibly forfeits every defense (1473815.pdf, p. 2).

2. Procedural Mechanics of Remand (OAH to ADRE)

Here, Whittaker moved to vacate the scheduled hearing and requested remand. The September 9 order granted that procedural step before the Department entered default.

• Rule Applied: Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-111(4) governs the vacating of administrative hearings.
• Basis Cited in This Remand: The September 9 order cites A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(E) and remands the matter to the referring agency for further action. It vacates the scheduled hearing, not the later final disposition (1466836.pdf, p. 1).

3. Financial Relief and Statutory Sanctions

The September 28 order mandates three remedies in this case. Its recital of the September 25 motion prints the citation “32-21990.02(A)”; that wording is part of the source recital, not a general statement of legal authority here (1473815.pdf, p. 2):

1. Injunction/Compliance: Mandatory directive that Respondent must henceforth abide by statutory obligations under A.R.S. § 33-1804.
2. Fee shifting: Mandatory full reimbursement of the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee, specifically ordering payment in certified funds.
3. State Civil Penalty: Assessment of a $380.00 civil penalty directly levied against Respondent, payable directly to the State of Arizona.

Important Quotes with Context

1. Ruling on Motion to Vacate and Remand

"Pursuant to ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-111(4), this matter is hereby vacated from the calendar of the Office of Administrative Hearings and is remanded to the referring agency for further action in accordance with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(E)." — ALJ Jenna Clark, Order Vacating Hearing (Sept 09, 2026)

Context: Issued following Petitioner’s September 08, 2026 Motion to Vacate. It stripped the case from the OAH trial docket for September 30, 2026, and routed it back to the Department of Real Estate to process an administrative default due to Respondent's silence.

2. Finding of Default and Entry of Judgment

"On September 15, 2026, the Department issued an ORDER OF DEFAULT against Respondent that held because Respondent failed to submit a timely ANSWER to the HOA NOTICE OF PETITION that all allegations made therein were deemed admitted by Respondent. As such, Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party in the action." — ALJ Jenna Clark, Final Order (Sept 28, 2026)

Context: Details the legal consequences of Respondent's failure to respond to both the June 19 and July 17 notices. Because no Answer was filed, the Department bypassed standard evidentiary burdens, accepting all of Whittaker's claims regarding A.R.S. § 33-1804 as admitted facts.

3. Final Order Mandates

"IT IS ORDERED that Respondent shall henceforth abide by the provisions of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804." "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee in certified funds." "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a $380.00 civil penalty be assessed against Respondent that shall be payable to the State of Arizona." — ALJ Jenna Clark, Final Order (Sept 28, 2026)

Context: Operative conclusions of the administrative process signed on September 28, 2026. This translates the default finding into enforceable statutory compliance orders, direct financial restitution to the Petitioner via certified funds, and a punitive financial assessment payable to the state treasury.

What the Orders Establish

• The procedural sequence: The September 9 order vacated the scheduled hearing and remanded the matter. The Department’s September 15 default is recounted in the later final order; the remand did not end the case in Respondent’s favor.
• The default in this case: The final order states that Respondent failed to answer the notices, the allegations were deemed admitted, and Whittaker was the prevailing party.
• The relief actually ordered: Respondent must henceforth abide by A.R.S. § 33-1804, reimburse Whittaker’s $500.00 filing fee in certified funds, and pay a $380.00 civil penalty to the State of Arizona.
• Award versus payment: These are the obligations imposed by the September 28 order. The order does not establish that either payment was later made, and this report does not treat an award as proof of receipt.

This is the result of these proceedings. The documents do not establish that every default produces the same remedies or a guaranteed reimbursement in certified funds in every other case (1466836.pdf, p. 1; 1473815.pdf, pp. 1–2).