"You could've sold me screws without endorsing my side," I told him.
"I know. That's the part I can't defend. I'm sorry."
I did not tell him it was nothing. It had been something, and he needed to understand that. But I bought a box of screws, and when I left he carried them to my truck without making a show of it. We were not suddenly friends. We had simply returned to being two people who could conduct an ordinary transaction without one asking the other to accept a lie.
Three weeks after the community meeting, Susan told me Amber's husband had filed for divorce. The news arrived not as gossip she wanted to share, but as context for the association's transition. Paul Ward owned their house jointly and had asked the board not to involve him in the financial review, saying his marriage and the HOA's governance were separate matters.
I did not celebrate the news. Whatever had happened in their home was beyond my knowledge and not a remedy for anything done to me. Amber had made decisions as president, and those decisions needed to be addressed. I had no interest in collecting private losses as trophies.
Henderson and Associates withdrew as association counsel a few days later, citing a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. Roberts told me that Henderson's office had reviewed the record and acknowledged it could not locate the 2009 easement agreement previously described in its letters. The firm made no public accusation of fraud, and Roberts did not pretend the withdrawal itself established guilt. It meant the board needed fresh legal advice unconnected to the earlier assumptions.
Susan hired a new attorney after obtaining board approval and securing bids from several firms. The new lawyer, Rebecca Sloan, asked to meet Roberts at a neutral conference room. I attended with him, carrying the same binder I had taken to Raleigh weeks earlier. Susan sat across from us with her own notes and a copy of the association's financial statements.
"Before we talk about settlement," Sloan said, "I want to acknowledge that the association has no document supporting the specific 2009 easement agreement asserted in its correspondence. We do not intend to repeat that claim."
It was the first unqualified sentence I had heard from anyone speaking formally for Pine Ridge. I felt my shoulders relax. Not because every legal issue had been resolved, but because we could finally discuss the road itself rather than keep arguing over a document nobody could produce.
Sloan continued by explaining that the association might have arguments concerning historical use but preferred not to ask a court to settle them if a reasonable agreement could protect both sides. The original southern exit remained open, so the neighborhood was not landlocked. Yet the shortcut served real daily needs, and the association wanted an arrangement that was clear enough to survive changes in ownership on both sides.
Roberts nodded. "Our client is willing to discuss that. But we have other issues: assessments against a nonmember parcel, threats unsupported by recorded documents, the use of association funds in this dispute, and property damage associated with the campaign against him. Those cannot be ignored merely because the board has changed."