I replied with the contractor's revised schedule and the relevant documentation.
Then I asked whether the association intended to hold a hearing before attempting any enforcement action.
No answer came.
The next morning, I received an email from the younger board accountant.
He wanted to speak privately.
We met at a coffee shop outside the neighborhood.
He looked troubled.
Then he opened his laptop.
The president had circulated an emergency proposal authorizing removal of what she described as an abandoned and hazardous vehicle from my property.
The proposal didn't accurately describe the Phoenix.
It suggested that the vehicle had been left exposed for an extended period and that the owner had failed to respond to notices.
Neither claim was true.
I looked toward the accountant.
"Did the board approve this?"
He shook his head.
"Not properly."
For a moment, my stomach tightened.
He continued.
"She says she has authority to act under the emergency enforcement provision."
I asked whether that provision actually allowed the association to enter private property and destroy a vehicle.
He looked down.
"That's why I wanted to warn you."
For several seconds, neither of us spoke.
Then I thanked him.
I contacted my attorney the same afternoon.
She advised preserving the correspondence and addressing any threatened removal through appropriate legal channels.
I also notified the transport company that no one other than me or my designated representative had authority to release the Phoenix.
The company confirmed the instruction.
I thought that would be enough.
But I didn't know the president had already contacted a different vendor.
The company was called Premier Recovery and Disposal.
It operated heavy recovery trucks, container equipment, and a vehicle-processing yard outside the city.
The business had legitimate contracts with commercial property owners and several municipal contractors.
But it also handled jobs through local referral arrangements.
One of those referrals came from the HOA president.
She had used Premier on several previous occasions to remove abandoned vehicles from association-controlled parking areas.
The company was operated by her brother-in-law.
That relationship wasn't disclosed in the financial summary presented to Westbridge homeowners.
It didn't automatically make every contract improper.
But it created an obvious conflict that should have been addressed before the association authorized payments to the vendor.
The president didn't mention any of that when she contacted the company's dispatcher.
She described the Phoenix as an abandoned vehicle stored in violation of community restrictions.
She claimed the owner had surrendered it after repeated notices.
And she requested immediate removal and disposal.
The dispatcher asked for documentation.