"You weren't foolish for wanting something stable," I told her. "They were responsible for explaining what they could actually sell." She asked why I was being kinder to her now than I had been in September. I considered the question and told her I had been angry and frightened, too, although I had hidden it better. I had thought of the group as an extension of Garrett's pressure campaign. Later I realized many of them were trying to get answers from the only person not telling them everything would be fine.
Patricia looked down at her coffee. "I still wish you hadn't drained it," she said. "I know," I answered. She nodded, apparently relieved I had not tried to argue her out of the feeling. Before leaving, she asked whether I would testify truthfully about the land if her group pursued a claim against Mountain Vista.
I said I would provide records and answer lawful questions, regardless of which side requested them. She thanked me, and for the first time I believed she saw me as a person rather than the shape of her loss.
The trial began on Monday, November 18, 2024. Judge Margaret Carlson presided, and the courtroom was crowded with cabin owners, residents from Mountain Vista, reporters, and people who had followed the story since the injunction hearing. Garrett sat with his attorneys at the plaintiff's table. He wore a dark blue suit and the same expression of injured authority he had shown when I first confronted him in July. From across the room he looked like a man who had been forced to defend himself against an outrageous attack.
The first morning was devoted to opening statements and an outline of the competing evidence. Westfield described me as a wealthy landowner who had deliberately disrupted a business and devastated innocent investors. He acknowledged that the boundary dispute was serious, but argued that I had used my control of the reservoir to inflict damage far beyond what was reasonably necessary to resolve it. He pointed out that the lake had existed for more than six decades and that previous inspections had not required such a broad drawdown. His argument was organized, professionally presented, and designed to make the court focus on proportionality rather than ownership alone.
David began with a large map of the Whitmore tract. He traced the recorded boundary from the northern inlet along the eastern upland and around the southern basin. Then he projected Elena's survey, which showed the cabins entirely within my property. Finally, he displayed the HOA's own construction planning map, where the boundary had been assumed rather than verified. He told the court that the resort's commercial success, however impressive, could not supply the missing deed.
Garrett testified that afternoon. He spoke about community development, job creation, and his desire to turn Mountain Vista into a destination resort. He described the construction as a twelve-million-dollar investment supported by county permits and expert advice. Westfield asked him about the financial consequences of the drawdown, and Garrett listed cancelled reservations, refund demands, management losses, and the damage to cabin owners' confidence. More than once he called the lake a public resource.