Introduction
These excerpts address the following issues in the dispute: slope maintenance history, the CC&R amendment, the French drain installation, and prior HOA repairs. All are taken directly from the official court transcript.
Q = Vasko Alexander, Jill's Attorney
A = Sandra Comouche, HOA Person Most Qualified
A = Sandra Comouche, HOA Person Most Qualified
Key Testimony
Was the French drain installed with engineering oversight?
No. No civil engineer was consulted before installation. The drain is still perforated (p. 83). The HOA connected surface drains to it. Sandra understands the consequence: water goes into the French drain, "because it's perforated, it would penetrate down" and be "reintroduced into the slope."
Has the HOA produced any records that it consulted a civil engineer prior to the installation of the French drain at 139?
No.
And what would be the effect of that as you understand it?
As I understand it, it would go into the French drain. And because it's perforated, it would penetrate down.
Be reintroduced into the slope, correct?
Right.
Pages 45-46, 83-84, 198
Did GeoTek confirm the French drain was reintroducing water into the slope?
Yes. After the slope repair, GeoTek documented in its as-graded report that the HOA's drain system, constructed with perforated pipe, was collecting surface water and introducing it into the subsurface directly behind the retaining wall. Sandra confirmed GeoTek was not speculating.
[Reading from GeoTek report] However, as the system is currently constructed with perforated drain pipe, surface water that is collected in the drains is being introduced into the subsurface, directly behind the existing retaining wall. Do you see that language?
Yes.
So they're not speculating as to what is happening, correct?
No.
Pages 60-62
Did the HOA enter private property to install the French drain?
Yes. Sandra confirmed the HOA entered a member's private property without the homeowner's knowledge or permission. The installation was authorized by the board and paid for with HOA funds.
The HOA trespassed on a member's property, private slope without the knowledge and permission of the homeowner out of the goodness of its heart?
Yes.
And the French drain is relevant to the slope, correct?
Correct.
And it's relevant to the slope because the HOA installed that French drain, correct?
Yes. Again, out of gesture of goodwill.
Pages 43, 112
Does Sandra understand what happens when water enters the perforated drain?
Yes. When asked what would happen if the surface drains remained uncapped, Sandra described the mechanism herself: water enters the French drain, and because the pipe is perforated, it penetrates down into the slope. She confirmed this means water is being reintroduced into the slope.
And if the current condition of those drains is that they're not capped, do you have an opinion as to that?
Well, if they weren't capped, then there could be surface water going in.
And what would be the effect of that as you understand it?
As I understand it, it would go into the French drain. And because it's perforated, it would penetrate down.
Be reintroduced into the slope, correct?
Right.
Pages 198-199
Does GeoTek's report say rain caused the slope failure?
No. Sandra confirmed the GeoTek reports do not conclude that excessive rain caused the failure. The HOA determined causation on its own, "by a process of elimination," before GeoTek's final report was even issued.
Is there anything in the preliminary report that states that excessive rainfall caused this slope failure?
No.
Where in this Exhibit 6 does GeoTek attribute rainfall as the cause for the slope failure?
Once again, I don't see it anywhere.
It doesn't, does it?
No.
Pages 55, 64, 69, 95
Is installing drainage without engineering oversight negligence?
Sandra denied it, but could not explain why Jill should bear the cost. When asked directly whether installing a French drain without engineering oversight that ended up reintroducing water into the slope constitutes negligence, Sandra said "we didn't know." When pressed on why Jill should be held responsible, Sandra said she is only being asked to pay for "putting back together her slope."
That's called negligence though, isn't it?
Well, no. We didn't know. I mean --
So why should my client be held responsible for that?
For what?
For the installation of a French drain that's reintroducing water back into the slope.
She's not being held responsible. She's only being held responsible for the putting back together her slope. That's all we want.
Pages 187-188
How did the HOA determine that rain caused the failure?
"By a process of elimination." Sandra testified the HOA reached its causation conclusion based on observations by landscape workers, committee members, and general news about the rainy season. None of these individuals are licensed civil engineers. No engineering report supported the conclusion at the time it was made.
By a process of elimination, that's how we came to that decision.
Whose observation?
The landscape people, the committee members and just the general news that, you know, we were in a very intense rain period.
Is Green Horizons a licensed civil engineer?
No.
Are you a licensed civil engineer?
No, I'm not.
Is anyone on the board a licensed civil engineer?
No.
Pages 67-69, 95-96
Did the HOA initially treat the slope failure as its own responsibility?
Yes. The day after the slope failure, Sandra emailed the board that $98,000 in reserve funds was available for the repair. She confirmed this was because the HOA was treating the slopes as common areas. Within months, the HOA reversed course and told Jill the slope was her responsibility. The reserves were no longer "available."
Reserved for fences and slopes has 98,000 in it. So money is available. Correct?
Yes, that's correct. And the reason I said that was because I presumed it was common area.
Per Sandra, for some reason this money is now not available. Do you see that?
Yes, being that this was private property, not common area.
Pages 98-99, 108-109
Were the CC&Rs amended after the lawsuit was filed?
Yes. Sandra's own email shows the board knew their CC&Rs needed to be changed. They amended the CC&Rs during the active lawsuit. The amendment was passed in 2025.
We have an email from you, March 15th, 2024. You write: "Does Jill Mann understand that we're not taking responsibility for the failure? The legal case is not over unless we assume responsibility and change the CC&Rs." That is exactly what happened, isn't it?
Yes.
Page 134 · Exhibit 21
Has the HOA ever repaired rain-damaged slopes on private property before?
Yes. In 2005, the HOA used community funds (Green Horizons project) to repair rain-damaged slopes on private property without billing any individual homeowner.
These are repairs done to the slopes as a result of rain damage, correct?
Correct.
But we have already agreed that within that time frame the HOA was treating all slopes as common area slopes, correct?
Yes.
Pages 209-211
Did the HOA maintain all slopes in the community, including private ones?
Yes. Sandra confirmed the HOA treated all slopes as common areas for over 30 years, regardless of whether they were technically on private property. This includes irrigation, planting, drainage, and pest control. Sandra confirmed no homeowner was ever invoiced for slope work (pp. 36, 51).
It was treating it as common area property, correct?
Right. And that was not only 139. It was all of the slopes that were in the community.
Has the HOA ever invoiced a private homeowner for pest control?
No.
Has the HOA ever invoiced a private homeowner for vegetation?
No.
Has the HOA ever invoiced a private homeowner for the water bills?
No.
Pages 36, 51, 74, 98
Were homeowners allowed to maintain their own slopes?
No. The HOA prohibited homeowners from touching or modifying slopes. A 1998 HOA newsletter described slopes as "common areas owned by individual property owners" and told residents they were "not permitted to plant anything, nor to attempt to maintain these areas."
[Reading 1998 newsletter] Common areas in Las Brisas are owned by individual property owners. However, due to insurance stipulations, homeowners are not permitted to plant anything, nor to attempt to maintain these areas.
Was Ms. Mann as a homeowner allowed to do any changes to the slope without an architectural approval?
No.
Pages 167, 207