He disputed any suggestion that the company had deliberately created sanitation problems.
He claimed the work orders were based on instructions from the HOA's authorized representative and that his employees relied on the association to determine whether enforcement was appropriate.
According to him, the company simply performed services requested by its customer.
The new president listened carefully.
Then she asked for the supporting documentation.
Crew schedules.
Inspection photographs.
Actual labor records.
Equipment charges.
And proof that the work described in the invoices had been performed.
The manager promised to provide everything.
Several days passed.
Some records arrived.
Others didn't.
The new president requested the missing material again.
The company responded that certain documents were proprietary business information.
The independent attorney explained that the association was entitled to seek records necessary to verify payments made under its contracts, subject to the actual contractual terms and legal procedures.
That answer didn't satisfy the manager.
He threatened to sue the association for interfering with his business.
The new president didn't retreat.
She simply asked him to identify the specific invoices he believed were accurate and provide the documents supporting them.
For the first time, the vendor was being asked to justify the charges rather than having the former president approve them automatically.
And the difference was enormous.
Several homeowners began submitting formal complaints.
The widow with the garden shed provided her invoice and photographs.
A young couple submitted records showing that a supposed patio cleanup had cost them more than seven thousand dollars despite the contractor spending less than an hour at their property.
Another homeowner disputed an emergency drainage charge after discovering that the photographed water had been ordinary rain accumulation that disappeared without intervention.
A retired nurse reported receiving a pest-control violation based on a photograph taken through a gap in her fence. The picture showed a small pile of leaves near her compost bin, but the invoice described extensive hazardous-debris removal.
Each case required careful review.
Some complaints involved misunderstandings about the scope of work.
Some involved legitimate maintenance conditions.
But several contained discrepancies that couldn't be dismissed easily.
The most troubling were the timestamps.
In multiple cases, ClearWater's work orders had been opened before the documented inspection.
In others, the contractor's invoices described work completed on dates when homeowners said no crew visited their properties.
The association's former president had personally approved many of those charges.
And when the new board requested the underlying inspection reports, several were missing.