Slope 139 Facts

Why Vote Yes To Settle ...

Jill has been in litigation with the HOA for more than two years. While the evidence supporting her case is very strong, and she is prepared to go to trial if necessary, she is advocating for a Yes vote to approve the proposed settlement.

Her goal is to minimize the financial impact on the community and bring this matter to a close. Continuing the lawsuit will increase costs for everyone and prolong the strain it places on families, health, and neighborhood relationships.

The Cost

A Yes vote resolves the dispute now at approximately $1,745 per home and eliminates the uncertainty of trial that underlies every case. A No vote does not eliminate the cost. It continues the litigation. If the case proceeds to trial, the total cost to homeowners could increase to $3,000 - $4,000 per home or more once additional legal fees, expert costs, and trial expenses are considered.

In the 35-year history of the community, this is the first time the HOA has attempted to require a homeowner to pay for repairs to a slope that the HOA historically controlled.

The Evidence

Most importantly, in this case, the HOA installed a French drain on Jill's slope without engineering design or oversight, and without permits. It is undisputed that, rather than carry water away from Jill's slope, this French drain instead collected surface water from the slope and reintroduced it back at the toe of the slope, without carrying it away as intended.

According to the HOA's own retained civil engineer, GeoTek, the condition that the HOA created at Jill's slope impacted the slope's positive site drainage, which is "referred to as drainage away from critical elements, not flowing uncontrolled down the hillside, should be flowed away from foundations, should not pond or seep." (GeoTek at 20:24 - 21:3.)

When asked, "And what is the danger of ponding or seeping of water, if positive site drainage is not maintained?", GeoTek responded:

This negligence is a central issue in the current litigation. The HOA is now attempting to shift responsibility for the resulting damage to Jill.

The Bigger Picture

What began as one homeowner's issue now affects the entire community. With more than 90 slopes across 169 homes, situations like this could arise again and potentially affect other homeowners in the future.

Even Dr. Huang, the HOA's retained expert, agrees that the "purpose to install the French drain behind this retaining wall [sic] to intercept both surface and perched groundwater condition below the ground surface. Well, the main purpose is to mitigate perched groundwater conditions, not to rise up to cause, you know, further damage to the site improvements." (Huang at 98:20-23; 100:4-6.)

Essentially, this means the purpose of a French drain is to move water away from the slope, because water sitting at the toe of a slope weakens it. This French drain did exactly the opposite of what it was intended to do.

The Path Forward

From the beginning, Jill attempted to resolve this matter without litigation. She sought to negotiate a settlement through mediation and direct communication with the Board. She also wanted to keep the community informed about the case and the escalating legal costs. However, she was later served a cease-and-desist letter by the HOA's attorney that limited her ability to communicate about the dispute. The prior Board also chose not to provide detailed updates to homeowners.

For transparency, this website provides sworn testimony from the HOA's own board members, engineer, and expert witness, as well as Jill and her expert witness. These statements were made under oath during depositions and provide important insight into the facts of the case. You can review key testimony excerpts and download the full transcripts by clicking the links further down the page.

This vote is not about taking sides. It is about deciding the best financial outcome for the community.

Jill respectfully encourages homeowners to review the information and consider voting Yes to resolve this matter now and avoid the uncertainty and additional costs of continued litigation.

What Happened ...

The French Drain

In 2019, the prior unit owner at Lot 139 complained to the HOA that the HOA's sprinklers were splashing over onto the owner's patio. In an effort to address the problem, the HOA not only moved the sprinklers, but, on its own, decided to install a French drain at the toe of the slope. The intent was to collect the water that was overflowing from the sprinklers and carry it away from the slope and the structures at Lot 139.

The HOA performed the installation of the French drain without consulting a civil engineer, under the supervision of a past Board member, Bill Katz, who admitted in deposition that he was not a civil engineer. Mr. Katz selected the services of Pablo's Landscaping, also not a civil engineer, to perform the actual installation of the French drain.

For more than 35 years, the HOA maintained and repaired slopes throughout the community, including slopes located on individual lots. The HOA also controlled the irrigation systems, drainage systems, landscaping, and access to these slopes. Homeowners were not permitted to perform work on the slopes themselves.

Instead of carrying the water away, the French drain reintroduced the water back into the toe of the slope, to a detrimental and catastrophic effect.

The Slope Failure

In April 2023, the slope behind Unit 139 failed.

After the failure, the HOA hired GeoTek, a licensed geotechnical engineering firm, to investigate and recommend repairs. GeoTek determined that the French drain was counterproductive because it collected surface water and reintroduced it into the subsurface of the slope.

The evidence shows that the French drain continues to collect water and reintroduce it into the toe of the slope, which is precisely the condition engineers seek to avoid because it weakens soil and reduces slope stability.

The Reversal

Immediately after the slope failure, the HOA treated the slope as their responsibility. The HOA hired engineers, authorized contractors, and began evaluating repair options.

Several months later, however, the HOA reversed course and informed Jill Mann that the slope was her responsibility.

The HOA's person most qualified, Sandra Comouche, justified this change by claiming that excessive rainfall caused the slope failure. Ms. Comouche testified that the HOA concluded that excessive rainfall caused the slope failure, basing this accusation on an alleged conclusion in GeoTek's preliminary report to that effect.

However, GeoTek's engineering reports do not conclude that rainfall caused the failure. During sworn testimony, Ms. Comouche acknowledged that the Board reached that conclusion by a process of elimination, rather than based on engineering analysis.

To be clear: none of GeoTek's reports draw the conclusion that excessive rainfall caused the slope failure, despite years-long representations by the prior Board and its counsel. On the contrary, GeoTek concluded that water was being reintroduced into the slope by the French drain, which is "counterproductive."

The CC&Rs

In addition, the HOA and its prior Board have represented to the community that CC&Rs allocate responsibility for private slope repair to the homeowners. Ms. Comouche testified that the HOA Board knew this is not the case.

Ms. Comouche also testified that the CC&Rs do not clearly assign slope repair responsibility to homeowners. She acknowledged that the governing documents were ambiguous, which ultimately led the HOA to amend the CC&Rs in 2025.

Contrary to the HOA's representations, no civil engineer has stated that the French drain is functioning as intended. Even the HOA's retained expert, Dr. Huang, acknowledged that water should be carried away from the slope and that hydrostatic pressure behind a retaining wall is undesirable. Dr. Huang's conclusions that the French drain is in fact beneficial and has no bearing on the slope failure assume that the French drain is properly carrying water away from the slope, which it is not.

The Lawsuit

The HOA has since completed a slope repair costing $65,434 and is now seeking to recover that amount from Jill Mann through litigation, including the threat of judicial foreclosure against her home.

In other words, the HOA initiated its lawsuit against Jill to force the sale of her home to recover monies spent on remediating damage that it caused to the slope.

In the 35-year history of the community, this is the first time the HOA has attempted to require a homeowner to pay for repairs to a slope that the HOA historically maintained and controlled, let alone damaged itself. More importantly, in this case, the HOA installed drainage on the slope without engineering design or oversight, and that installation greatly contributed to the slope failure. This negligence is a central issue in the current litigation. The HOA is now attempting to shift responsibility for the resulting damage to the homeowner.

The Impact

What began as one homeowner's issue now affects the entire community. With more than 90 slopes across 169 homes, situations like this could arise again and potentially affect other homeowners in the future.

Through the legal process, sworn testimony has been obtained from HOA board members, engineers, contractors, and expert witnesses — including representatives from GeoTek, Pablo's Landscaping, the HOA's landscaping contractor, and expert witnesses retained by both parties — regarding the HOA's historic practices, the installation of drainage on the slope, and the events that led to the slope failure.

You can review key testimony excerpts and download the full transcripts by clicking the links below.