Introduction
These excerpts address the following issues in the dispute: the cause of the slope failure, the French drain installation, the role of rainfall, and the HOA's maintenance practices. All are taken directly from the official court transcript.
Q = Craig Combs, HOA's Attorney
A = Stavros Chrysovergis, Jill's Expert Witness
A = Stavros Chrysovergis, Jill's Expert Witness
Key Testimony
How does Jill's expert compare to the HOA's expert?
Chrysovergis has served as an expert witness in hundreds of cases over more than two decades. His deposition case list documents over 170 depositions since 2002, including numerous HOA and slope failure cases. He holds both a Professional Engineer and Geotechnical Engineer license. By contrast, Dr. Huang, the HOA's expert, testified in his own deposition that this was his first slope failure case.
So you've been designated as an expert many times in California, haven't you?
Yes.
How many times do you think, approximately?
I don't know, hundreds.
Page 6
What does the expert say caused the slope failure?
Mismanagement by the HOA. Chrysovergis's written expert opinion attributes the slope failure to the HOA's mismanagement of surface water and installation of an improper drainage system. When asked to explain, he testified the HOA "hired incompetent contractors to install an improper drainage system, which made it worse."
At the top of your opinion it says, "The slope failure discovered on April 27th, 2023, is due to the mismanagement of surface water flow and the installation of an improper drainage system by Las Brisas Pacificas' HOA." Is that what it says there?
Yes.
And can you please explain what you mean by that?
So we have a situation where Ms. Mann's house is at the top of a slope, a descending slope and clearly the water, the runoff water from the slope ends up at the wall, the retaining wall that is at the limit of her property. So there is a lot of water coming down. As you know, we had an incident before that the water was going over the wall, staining the wall and damaging the wall. Now, what the association did, they wanted to correct that spilling over the wall, so they hired incompetent contractors to install an improper drainage system, which made it worse.
Pages 24-25
What did the French drain actually do to the slope?
It saturated the soil. Rather than solving the water problem, the HOA's French drain allowed water to penetrate into the ground and saturate the soils at the top of the slope. The system did the opposite of what was intended.
But did that drainage system that they installed prevent the water from overflowing the retaining wall?
I don't know about that. What it did, it allowed the water to get into the ground and saturate the soils at the top of the slope.
Pages 25-26
Were the drainage pipes properly constructed?
No. "Totally improper." Chrysovergis testified that the perforated pipes lacked protective filters. Without filters, soil entered the pipes and clogged the entire drainage system. By April 2023, all the drains were clogged. The system meant to carry water away was instead trapping it behind the retaining wall.
Did you notice that there was any structural problems with the retaining wall?
Not per se, but I did notice that the wall was affected by the moisture.
The pipes that were used were totally improper, the perforated pipes. Totally improper. They were not protected through the holes, the perforations in the pipe. They were not protected with any filter so that the soil, it could get into the holes, get into the pipe, get into the sub drain and clog up. In fact, on April 30th I think it was of 2023, that they unclogged the drains, so it was, all the drains were clogged. So all this band behind the wall would have been completely saturated.
Pages 52-54
Who installed the French drain, and were they qualified?
Landscapers, not engineers. Chrysovergis identified Pablos Landscaping as the contractor. After the drain was installed, the trench had to be backfilled. Because the contractors were "just landscapers," the backfill was not properly compacted. Without compaction, voids in the fill reduced the slope's resistance to sliding.
After they install the drains, they have to backfill that trench. If you don't backfill the trench, what happens is the slope doesn't have any restraint, doesn't have any support, so it moves. Then they backfill the trench. Unfortunately, they are just landscapers. They were not engineers, because if it were an engineer, that fill would have been compacted properly. They did not compact the fill properly. What that means is there's a lot of voids in the fill, which means it does not provide enough resistance to the slope to slip down.
Pages 45-46
Does the expert believe rainfall caused the slope failure?
No. Chrysovergis performed his own rainfall analysis, calculated the recurrence period, and concluded the storm was only a two-year event. He testified that a two-year storm "cannot induce a slope failure unless that slope is totally injured and totally weakened by the maintenance." He deliberately omitted rainfall from his written opinion because he found it was not the cause.
How come you don't address rainfall as a possible cause of the slope failure?
Because I think the statistical analysis with respect to the recurrence period was too low. It was only two years, so a two-year storm cannot induce a slope failure unless that slope is totally injured and totally weakened by the maintenance. That's the only way it can produce that failure.
You didn't mention rain one time in your opinion, did you?
Because I don't think that rain is the cause of failure. That's why.
Pages 41-42
What should a healthy slope be able to withstand?
Far more than what happened here. Chrysovergis testified that slopes are designed to withstand a hundred-year storm. The storm that preceded this failure was a two-year event. A slope that fails from routine rainfall is one that has already been damaged. He described this slope as "injured, heavily injured."
The slopes are not designed to fail for a two-year storm. They're designed to fail after a hundred-year storm. I'm involved with a case that we had in Encinitas that we had a thousand-year storm and the slope failed, but here is such a minor thing. You'd not expect the slope to fail unless it's damaged, it's injured, it's not maintained properly. Then it will fail.
Pages 34-35
Was the slope already showing signs of distress before it failed?
Yes. Chrysovergis identified cracks on the slope visible in aerial photographs from January 2020, three years before the failure. The slope ultimately failed along those same cracks. He also noted copper pipes at neighboring lots being pulled out of position, indicating the slope had been creeping. Neither the HOA nor its landscaper identified or addressed these signs.
There were old cracks on the slope, that they were dated as old as January 2020. And the slope happened to fail on those old cracks. What that means is the slope was moving, had cracked and unfortunately neither the association and the landscaper were able to look at them and see them and repair them if necessary. Definitely there was some creep going on on the slope.
How do you know that?
If you look at copper pipes at 127 or 128 lot number, you will see those pipes are being pulled out because the slope is pulling them. They're not straight anymore, so that's evidence that the slope is creeping.
Pages 31-32
What is the single most important factor in the slope failure?
Drainage. When asked to rank the possible causes, Chrysovergis identified the drainage system at the bottom of the slope as "the most important thing." If the water had a proper exit path, it would not have saturated the soil and the slope would not have failed.
If we understand that the slope failed because of the saturated soil and that means that if the water had an exit to go to the drains and get dissipated through non-erodible drainage devices, that water would not have had the ability to stay in the soil and saturate the soil. So the drainage at the bottom of the slope I think is the most important thing that we're dealing with here today.
Pages 59-60
Did the HOA's expert review all available materials?
No. Chrysovergis testified that Dr. Huang, the HOA's expert witness, only reviewed materials provided by the HOA's attorney and neglected other available information. He compared this to reading a few pages of a book and writing a summary of the whole thing.
He is qualified to provide opinions provided that he has viewed all the materials available rather than viewing only partial materials available, which was provided by you, by the way, and neglect everything else that's available. I don't think that's the right way to do it. It's just like having a book if you read a few pages and write a summary and opinions about the whole book. That's not right.
Page 13
Does the expert dispute the HOA's conclusion that irrigation was not a factor?
Yes. The HOA's expert report stated that no broken irrigation lines were found. Chrysovergis pointed to the sworn testimony of Kent Berchiolli, the former landscape committee chair who oversaw the slopes for 15 years, who testified that irrigation pipes leaked regularly. Chrysovergis drew a sharp distinction between firsthand observation and secondhand conclusions.
He knows nothing about irrigation lines leaking. Berchiolli testified that the pipes leak all the times. Those are the facts and those are speculation. They're two different things. Berchiolli mentions the facts and Huang the speculation.
Page 55