Survey.
Plans.
Emails.
Work authorization.
Field sketch.
Monica’s $1,200 threat.
Sarah called the following morning.
“Do not touch their equipment.”
“I haven't.”
“Do not block county inspectors.”
“I won't.”
“Do not physically prevent the contractor from leaving.”
“Obviously.”
“Good.”
“Now let me do title work.”
Two days later, I sat across from her.
She had a title report and archived records.
“There are easements affecting your ranch.”
My stomach tightened.
“Okay.”
“Drainage here.”
She pointed.
“Old utility crossing here.”
“County road access at the north boundary.”
“None appear to grant Redstone Crest the right to place this pump station at the current location.”
I leaned back.
“You're sure?”
“I’m sure about what we found.”
“I’m not telling you something cannot exist in some unindexed private agreement.”
“But there is no recorded easement granting the HOA this permanent wastewater facility footprint.”
“Monica says they have all rights.”
“She can identify them.”
Sarah said.
“That is what we ask.”
She slid another document toward me.
“Now this is interesting.”
Five years old.
Before I bought? No.
I had already owned Harland Creek fourteen years.
Then I realized.
Earl Danner’s name appeared.
The document predated my purchase?
No.
Wait.
Earl had retained an adjacent narrow parcel for several years after selling me the ranch, then transferred it later.
The older correspondence concerned a utility corridor proposed across the eastern ranch boundary while he still held an interest in one adjoining strip.
Redstone Crest HOA had requested a right of entry and prospective utility access across substantially the same area.
Attached was Earl’s response through counsel.
NO PERMANENT UTILITY RIGHTS CONVEYED.
ACCESS REQUEST DECLINED.
Then I saw the names.
HOA president at the time.
Board secretary:
Monica Vale.
Her signature appeared beneath the transmission acknowledgment.
I stared.
“She knew.”
Sarah immediately lifted one finger.
“Be precise.”
“This establishes that she participated in an earlier HOA request for utility access affecting substantially this area, and that the request was refused.”
“It does not establish what she believed every later instrument provided.”
“She knew the HOA once thought it needed permission.”
“That is fair.”
That distinction mattered.
Precision beats outrage when documents are good.
Sarah put the old request beside Monica’s new work authorization.
The contrast was almost ridiculous.
Old HOA:
May we have access?
Landowner:
No.
New HOA:
Construction authorized.
Same general strip.
No landowner signature.
Sarah drafted a letter.
It stated:
The station occupies Wade Harland’s parcel.
The approved county civil sheet depicts a different location on Redstone Crest common property.
No executed easement, license, right of entry, or construction consent has been identified for the alternate site.
Prior HOA correspondence demonstrates that the association previously sought utility-access rights over substantially the same ranch area and received a written refusal.
Then:
Please identify the specific recorded or executed instrument upon which Redstone Crest relies for permanent occupation, operation, access, and maintenance of the present pump-station site.
Recording number.
Date.
Grantor.
Grantee.
Legal description.
Not:
Prove you're wrong.
Specific request.
Sarah also demanded preservation of relevant records.
Board emails.
Relocation discussions.
Contractor communications.
Engineering correspondence.
Site-control documentation.