The following week, Kendra Mills published a second article. This one was longer. She had obtained a copy of the court filing independently and had now read it thoroughly. She reported on the board minutes specifically, the tabled easement vote from eleven years ago. She quoted the minutes directly as a matter of public record. She also reported that multiple homeowners had raised concerns about disclosure at the annual meeting.
She reached Thorne for comment this time. He told her the matter was in the hands of legal counsel. That quote ran in the article under his name. The second article traveled further than the first. It was picked up by two regional news aggregator websites. The comment sections were active. People who had no connection to Maplewood Estates were reading it and forming opinions.
Patricia called me after the second article ran. She said external pressure was now doing work we did not have to do ourselves. She said the HOA’s internal unity was fracturing. She said Calloway had contacted her office requesting an urgent call. She took the call. Calloway asked if we were open to renewed settlement discussions before the court date. Patricia told him we were open to one conversation. She told him to come with a serious number this time. He said he would.
Calloway’s serious number was better than his first offer. It was not good enough. Patricia rejected it in writing within twenty-four hours and confirmed our court date was proceeding. The date was six weeks out. We had work to do. Patricia began formal trial preparation immediately. She outlined what the courtroom presentation needed to accomplish. Not just win, but win cleanly.
She wanted the judge to have no ambiguity about any element of the case. She wanted every document introduced as a formal exhibit. She wanted every expert witness prepared and rehearsed. Gerald the surveyor was first. Patricia met with him twice. He was comfortable with courtroom testimony. He had testified in boundary disputes before. His survey methodology was sound and fully documented.
Patricia had him prepare a clear visual exhibit. A scaled diagram of the western boundary showing the wellhead location, the pipe route, and the boundary markers. Simple enough for a non-engineer to understand immediately. Marcus Webb prepared a condensed version of his flow report for courtroom presentation. Patricia wanted the water-volume numbers presented visually. Marcus produced a one-page chart showing daily flow, monthly accumulation, and eleven-year total volume. Clean numbers. No technical language a layperson could not follow.
Howard Finch reviewed his appraisal and prepared a verbal summary Patricia could walk him through. She rehearsed the examination with him twice in her office. Howard was experienced with testimony. He stayed precise and did not embellish. Daniel Cross agreed to appear as a second legal-opinion witness. His role was to confirm the strength of the trespass and unjust-enrichment claims from an independent water-rights perspective.