CANTRICE COURT OWNERS
Independent owner-maintained website. The Cantrice Court name is used solely to identify the Cantrice Court community in Simi Valley, California, and the subject of this site. This website is not affiliated with, sponsored by, authorized by, or operated by the Cantrice Court Condominium Owners' Association, its Board of Directors, or its management company.

Public correspondence · October 22, 2026

Formal demand: approved roofing proposal and missing records

This is an edited public transcription of William Mills's October 22 letter to Association counsel. Private email routing, BCC recipient information, and incidental email-client content have been omitted. Refer to the sender's original for the complete communication.

Subject: Outstanding September 11 Records Request and New Formal October 7 Roofing Records Request

To: Association counsel, with copies to Board leadership and management.

I am contacting you directly because Jeff stated that my records requests are referred to Association counsel. These additional roofing records issues are not presently included in our October 29 ADR mediation. Continued noncompliance may soon require separate ADR and enforcement proceedings.

My September 11, 2026 roofing records request remains unresolved.

1. Board president's statement regarding roofing quotes

At the October 21 Board meeting, President Mark Reynders stated that the Board approved an approximately $1.4 million roofing quote on October 7, although no contract had been signed. He further asserted that quotes are not provided to homeowners.

That blanket assertion is legally troubling. Civil Code §5200(a)(5) expressly makes written Board approvals of contractor proposals or invoices inspectable. Section 5200(a)(4) separately covers executed contracts.

The Board cannot avoid statutory inspection requirements simply by labeling an approved contractor proposal a “quote.” We are discussing approximately $1.4 million in proposed roofing expenditures. Homeowners are entitled to inspect qualifying records documenting what the Board approved, regardless of terminology.

If the Association maintains Mark's position, please identify the specific legal authority supporting it.

2. New, separate formal records request — October 7

Pursuant to Civil Code §§5200 and 5210, I formally request:

  1. The written Board approval, resolution, or other existing written record documenting approval of the approximately $1.4 million roofing proposal on October 7.
  2. The approved quote or proposal, including scope, pricing, exclusions, and terms, to the extent incorporated into the approval or otherwise qualifying for inspection.
  3. Any resulting executed roofing agreement, if one exists.

Production deadline: November 5, 2026, assuming receipt October 22, under Civil Code §5210(b)(1).

I separately request the October 7 open-session minutes, draft minutes, or summary, which must be available by November 6, 2026, under §4950(a).

3. Outstanding September 11 request

The June 10 Board agenda expressly identified “Roof Replacement — Review Quotes & Approve.” Yet the June 10 minutes, draft minutes, or summary remain unavailable despite their July 10 statutory deadline. The qualifying roofing contracts, approvals, invoices, payment records, and other documents requested September 11 also remain outstanding.

Mark stated on October 21 that he would investigate.

4. Documented pattern and cost of noncompliance

These are not isolated incidents. The documentary evidence is extensive, including formal requests, counsel's responses, Vantaca records, missing meeting minutes, and repeated follow-ups.

In Golden Rain Foundation v. Franz (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1141, homeowners prevailed after an association refused records requests and unsuccessfully litigated to avoid its Davis–Stirling obligations. According to the Foundation's 2008 annual report, the Orange County Superior Court ordered it to pay $497,335 in opposing parties' attorneys' fees and costs. That amount is attributed to the Foundation's report, not to the published appellate opinion.

At the October 21 meeting, Mark proposed approximately $20,000 for the Association's 2027 legal budget. That budget has not yet been adopted. Continuing to refer routine records requests to counsel, while leaving qualifying records unavailable, risks exposing all 98 homeowners to avoidable legal expenses.

Civil Code §§5235 and 4955 provide potential statutory enforcement remedies. These additional roofing records issues are not presently included in the pending ADR but may soon require separate proceedings.

5. Electronic production

Pursuant to Civil Code §5205(h), I request electronic production by email, in PDF format where available, of all qualifying records capable of electronic transmission.

For any existing qualifying record withheld, please identify the specific legal basis. If a requested record does not exist, please state that expressly.

The September 11 request remains outstanding under its original applicable deadlines. The October 7 request is new, separate, and subject to its own statutory deadlines.

Please produce the qualifying records electronically within the applicable periods. The Association can resolve these matters through timely compliance rather than spending additional homeowner funds defending another documented records dispute.

William Mills

Public transcription prepared for owner information; original letter was sent October 22, 2026. The underlying documents referenced in the email may be requested through the normal records-inspection process.