Company counsel replied:
“Internal audit.”
“Preserve records.”
“Notify insurer.”
“Contact affected vehicle owners where warranted.”
“And stop any questionable removals.”
“Already done.”
“Good.”
Then:
“And you should not personally handle the HOA dispute.”
The Homeowner frowned.
“Why?”
“You are the resident involved and the company owner.”
“Conflict.”
“Yes.”
He hated that.
But agreed.
An independent attorney would review the towing history.
His Operations Manager would cooperate.
The Homeowner would provide his own incident footage as a resident separately.
That boundary mattered.
The HOA President emailed him the next afternoon.
Your interference with an authorized tow constitutes obstruction of association enforcement. The Board will consider additional sanctions.
The Black Homeowner read the message.
Then forwarded it to his personal attorney.
No response.
Two hours later another email arrived.
Your commercial affiliation with the towing vendor creates an undisclosed conflict of interest affecting neighborhood enforcement.
He almost laughed.
He had not chosen Metro Recovery for the HOA.
The contract predated his purchase of the company by four years.
That fact mattered.
He had bought Metro Recovery fourteen months earlier as part of a larger business acquisition.
The HOA account came with thousands of small customer accounts.
He had never reviewed it individually.
The President apparently interpreted ownership as evidence he had secretly controlled neighborhood towing.
That accusation could become serious if residents believed it.
So he did something unusual.
He called an HOA board member he trusted.
The Treasurer.
“I need to disclose something.”
The Treasurer sounded cautious.
“What?”
“I own Metro Recovery.”
Silence.
“The tow company?”
“Yes.”
“You’re kidding.”
“No.”
“How long?”
“Fourteen months.”
“Does the President know?”
“She does now.”
The Treasurer exhaled.
“Okay.”
The Black Homeowner continued.
“I had no involvement in your vendor relationship.”
“It existed before I purchased the company.”
“I’m having an independent review done.”
“Why?”
“Because I found a pattern of HOA requests involving private driveways.”
The Treasurer became silent.
Then:
“What kind of pattern?”
The Homeowner explained only what he knew.
No accusations.
Seventeen residential-address tows in two years.
Multiple wrongful-tow complaints.
Customer certifications claiming association authority.
His own attempted tow falsely classified.
The Treasurer whispered:
“Oh no.”
“What?”
“I’ve been asking about towing revenue.”
The Homeowner stopped.
“Revenue?”
“Not revenue to the HOA.”
“Fines.”
“Vehicle enforcement penalties.”
The HOA charged separate administrative violation fees when a tow occurred.
The towing company collected tow and storage charges.
The HOA collected its own fines.
The Treasurer had noticed vehicle-related fines increased sharply.
The President claimed stronger enforcement was working.
“How much?”
the Homeowner asked.
“Last year?”
“About eighteen thousand.”
His expression hardened.
“For vehicle violations?”
“Yes.”
“Year before?”
“Maybe six.”
Threefold increase.
That still did not prove abuse.