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.