That evening I called David and asked him to send the cabin-owner group a packet of public documents. I wanted them to have the evidence, including the survey and the HOA's notice letters, before Garrett convinced them their only hope was to keep suing me. David suggested we also tell them that the property case was distinct from any allegations of investment fraud. We could not promise compensation from the association, but we could stop the information from being controlled entirely by the man who had sold the cabins. It was the first constructive thing I had done for those investors since the drawdown began.
The preliminary injunction hearing took place on September 20 before Judge Margaret Carlson in Douglas County District Court. I wore an ordinary dark suit and carried the folder my grandfather had labeled RESERVOIR. Garrett appeared with three attorneys from Westfield and Associates, a firm whose office occupied two floors of a building in Denver. Their table was stacked with binders, graphics, and glossy photographs. Ours held the property survey, the dam records, and a set of carefully indexed exhibits.
Marcus Westfield, Garrett's lead attorney, argued that the association had established an active business and that the sudden loss of the lake would cause irreparable financial harm. He described vacationers who had paid for lakefront access and investors facing devastating losses. Then he said the drawdown was retaliation disguised as maintenance. It was a serious argument, and I could see the judge taking notes as he spoke.
David did not pretend the economic harm was imaginary. Instead, he asked the court to examine where the cabins stood and what rights the association actually possessed. Elena's certified survey showed the structures within the Whitmore boundary, and the record contained no deed or recorded agreement authorizing their construction. David also presented the engineering assessment, the communications with water authorities, the monitoring plan, and the work already completed on exposed parts of the dam. Those records did not erase the dispute over my motive, but they made clear that the operation was real and subject to oversight.
Judge Carlson questioned both lawyers sharply. She asked why the association had not obtained a boundary survey before spending millions of dollars. Westfield said Garrett had relied on county mapping and the construction permits. She asked whether those documents conveyed title to the ground beneath the cabins.
He admitted that they did not. Then she asked David whether the reservoir could be safely maintained at its current level while the litigation proceeded. He explained that the engineers were already working under their approved schedule and that any later changes would have to meet the applicable safety and environmental requirements.
The judge denied the HOA's request to compel an immediate refill. She found that the association had not demonstrated the property interest or legal basis needed for such extraordinary interim relief, especially in light of the strong recorded evidence of my ownership. She did not announce that I could operate a dam without restriction, and she did not decide every issue in the case. Instead, she expressly preserved the safety and regulatory obligations that already applied and directed the parties to maintain relevant records while the main claims proceeded.