But the treasurer couldn't find any properly recorded vote authorizing the specific commitment.
The homeowner stared at the paper.
Then looked toward her attorney.
“Can the association promise rights over my land?”
He shook his head.
“Not merely by passing a resolution.”
She nodded.
“Then why would the developer accept this?”
He considered the question.
“Perhaps they believed the president could secure the necessary rights later.”
She looked toward the document.
“And she had a financial incentive to make that happen.”
“Possibly. We need to examine the contract and the circumstances.”
The homeowner remained quiet.
Then she asked another question.
“How much?”
Her attorney looked toward the documents.
“The contingent compensation appears substantial.”
She waited.
He turned the page.
Then gave her the figure.
Four million dollars.
The homeowner stared.
For several seconds, she didn't move.
Then she looked toward the enormous red-brick house outside her office window.
The flowers.
The porch.
The old trees.
And the narrow corridor behind the property.
For the first time, the HOA president's desperation made sense.
She hadn't merely been irritated by a new resident who refused to follow her instructions.
She had made a financial promise.
A promise involving land she didn't own.
And the homeowner's refusal threatened to destroy the value of that promise.
The young woman leaned back.
Then whispered.
“She thought she could scare me into signing.”
Her attorney nodded slowly.
“That is one possible explanation consistent with the evidence.”
The homeowner looked toward him.
Then said quietly.
“Let's prove what actually happened.”
The developer received a formal inquiry shortly afterward.
The homeowner's counsel requested clarification concerning any proposed access rights over the property, any representations made by the HOA, and any documents suggesting her consent had been obtained.
The developer's initial response was cautious.
It confirmed that the company had considered several access options.
It denied possessing a completed easement from the homeowner.
And it acknowledged that no final agreement had been executed granting the developer the right to construct a roadway across her land.
That answer was important.
The HOA president had repeatedly spoken as though the project were inevitable.
But the developer's response showed that critical approvals remained outstanding.
The homeowner's attorney then requested information concerning the association's claimed support for the project.
Further correspondence revealed that the developer had relied heavily on statements made by the president and her consultant.
The developer's leadership had been told that the relevant property owner was expected to cooperate.