“I think she has treated other residents badly too.”
“Some white.”
“Some Black.”
“Some wealthy.”
“Some not.”
He paused.
“I don’t know exactly what was in her head.”
“I know what she did.”
The sheriff nodded even though they were on the phone.
“That’s probably enough for now.”
The following morning, the HOA president sent the email.
Every household received it before seven.
The subject read:
Statement Regarding Yesterday’s Community Enforcement Incident
The Black homeowner opened it reluctantly.
The first paragraph described “a regrettable escalation arising from repeated noncompliance involving an unauthorized luxury vehicle.”
The second referred to “incomplete video clips circulating without the full history of enforcement difficulties.”
The third emphasized that she had acted “in good faith based on information available at the time.”
The fourth claimed she had “mistakenly believed association enforcement authority permitted immediate abatement.”
Nowhere did she use the word bat.
Nowhere did she say smashed.
Nowhere did she say sheriff.
The homeowner forwarded it to his attorney.
The attorney replied:
Excellent.
The homeowner called.
“Why excellent?”
“She just gave us a written statement admitting intent.”
“Good faith?”
“Intent is not the same as malice.”
“She still admits she intentionally acted.”
The attorney continued.
“She also connected the conduct to the HOA again.”
“Which means?”
“Which means the board now needs independent counsel.”
“What do I do?”
“Still nothing.”
“I’m becoming very good at nothing.”
“That’s why I bill you.”
Two hours later, the HOA vice-president called.
He sounded exhausted.
“We have a problem.”
The homeowner looked around his kitchen.
“I suspected.”
“She won’t call a board meeting.”
“Then call one without her.”
“We’re checking whether we can.”
“Article five, section six.”
Silence.
The vice-president sighed.
“You have got to stop knowing our documents better than us.”
“You keep sending them to me.”
“We need four directors.”
“You have seven.”
“Two still support her.”
“That leaves five.”
Another silence.
The vice-president said:
“She says association counsel must defend her.”
“Maybe.”
“Maybe?”
“Depends on indemnification language.”
“Whether she acted within authority.”
“Whether conduct was willful.”
“You need your own lawyer.”
“We have a lawyer.”
“The same lawyer she expects to represent her?”
The vice-president groaned.
“Right.”
The homeowner continued.
“Do not ask me for legal advice.”
“I’m not a lawyer.”
“I know.”
“You sound like one.”
“That is an insult.”
The vice-president laughed despite himself.
Then became serious.
“I should have stopped this months ago.”
The homeowner did not rescue him from that sentence.
The man continued.
“She kept telling us you were trying to make the association ungovernable.”
“Because I appealed fines.”
“Yes.”
“She said if we let you win one, everyone would challenge everything.”