Embedded Files
For over 30 years that this HOA has existed, No Board has ever used official Association communications to publicly criticize an individual homeowner and sitting volunteer Director. The current Board chose to do so twice, using homeowner funds to distribute official letters containing accusations and personal criticisms directed at me. This website was created in response to those letters and to document the complete factual record behind those claims and the events that led to them.
There was no lawsuit. There was no court proceeding. There was only my request, over a year ago, for mediation—a process encouraged by California law and required by our governing documents before any potential litigation. The board meetings had become dysfunctional and personal. The mediation itself cost $6,900, with the Association and me each paying $3,450.
Yet the Executive Committee—just four individuals—authorized $37,986 (and counting) in legal fees on matters involving me. The Board has repeatedly claimed these expenditures were necessary to "defend" the Association.
Defend the Association from what?
I believe these legal expenditures reflect the weaponization of Association resources against a fellow homeowner and volunteer HOA Board member.
Regardless of who's right or wrong, one thing is certain: the Association attorney is the only party being paid by you as the board majority continues this conflict. 🤔
Every issue the Association has accused me of in its community-wide letters is false and misleading. Rather than responding to the governance concerns I have raised, the Board majority has chosen to publicly attack me.
The Board majority went so far as to state:
"The Board encourages Ms. LaBruzzo to either cease her inappropriate behavior and publications or to
file suit."
That statement is astonishing and irresponsible. But they already know that I have no desire to sue my own Association. If I had, I would have done so long ago. Instead, I requested mediation. The Board (3 of 5 individuals in 2025) delayed that process for nearly ten months and has now spent nearly $38,000 in legal fees on "matters" concerning me.
The Board majority response to legitimate governance concerns should never encourage litigation. It should address those concerns.
Through June 30, 2026, of the Association's $48,441legal fees, $37,986 (78%) was spent on legal advice and strategies against me, leaving just $10,455 (22%) for every other Association legal governance advice or assistance over six months.
Of Note: The remaining $10,455 does not include legal review of the 2026 Architectural Guidelines, as the Board publicly stated that it chose not to have Association counsel review those Guidelines before adopting them.🤷🏼♀️
Is this how homeowners expect their Association's legal budget to be spent?
This is about transparency, accountability, and the Board’s fiduciary responsibility of your money.
See: Governance Concerns
The Cost of HOA Division
How did a disagreement over HOA governance evolve into years of conflict, anonymous accusations, public attacks, legal expenses, failed mediation, a recall effort, and a neighborhood divided?
Over the past few years, homeowners have received emails, newsletters, social media posts, anonymous communications, meeting commentary, and official Board statements concerning Victoria LaBruzzo and board controversies. Many homeowners understandably formed opinions based on the information available to them - especially if it appeared from a group of homeowners.
What many homeowners never received was the underlying context.
The issues described here did not arise from a single disagreement. What began as differing views regarding traffic circulation, governance, enforcement, architectural decisions, transparency, and interpretation of the governing documents gradually became personal. Anonymous letters & flyers circulated. Select homeowners were publicly criticized. Neighbors became divided. Board members stopped trusting one another. Legal expenses were incurred. Mediation failed. A recall petition was ultimately stopped under questionable circumstances before the membership had an opportunity to vote.
As you review these materials, I encourage you to ask a simple question:
Did these events occur because one homeowner was the source of every problem in the Association—or is there a larger story that homeowners were never given the opportunity to see? Providing those answers is the purpose of this site.
A Note Regarding the Anonymous Email from January 2026
An example of the issues discussed throughout this website involves an inflammatory anonymous email distributed to homeowners on January 19, 2026. The email contained one homeowner's highly biased and misleading portrayal of me, contributing to community bias and further exacerbating false rumors within our community.
During homeowner Open Forum at the May 27, 2026 Board meeting, former Board President Roy Pearson repeated many of the same allegations contained in that letter. In several instances, his comments were strikingly similar, if not verbatim, to statements contained in the anonymous communication.
Given the overlap between the anonymous letter and Mr. Pearson's public remarks, homeowners may find it useful to review the letter within the broader context of the events described throughout this website.
The anonymous email consists largely of opinions, accusations, and characterizations of both my actions and my character. In the interest of transparency, I have provided supporting documentation and source materials relating to many of the claims referenced in that communication so homeowners can evaluate them for themselves. Anonymous Letter
A physical copy of the May 5, 2026 Association-wide accusation correspondence was sent to the personal residences of the Chair and the President for the Scripps Ranch Civic Association (SRCA) - a community board of which I am a sitting director. These two individuals are not members of the Association.
What Association purpose, if any, was served by distributing the divisive correspondence beyond the Association's membership and governance structure? NONE - this appears to be an attempt to ruin the reputation of a community leader beyond the HOA.
I volunteer my time & leadership as a Director on SRCA, Voice of Scripps Ranch (VOSR) and Chair of both the Scripps Ranch Planning Group (SRPG) www.srcpg.org and the City of San Diego Community Planners' Committee (CPC) www.sdcpc.org
This behavior is completely inappropriate.
Important Note
Important Note
For transparency and to correct the record, this website contains documents, correspondence, meeting materials, and other supporting information related to issues that have been publicly discussed within the Association.
To protect privacy and comply with applicable legal and ethical obligations, certain materials have been redacted where appropriate. Personal homeowner information and other sensitive information may be redacted before publication.
The opinions expressed on this website are my own and are based upon documented events, Association records, meeting proceedings, correspondence, and my direct participation in matters affecting the Association. Wherever possible, supporting documentation has been provided so that homeowners may independently evaluate the information presented. Certain information may not be published due to legal, privacy, confidentiality, or other applicable restrictions. Where documentation cannot be fully disclosed, I have attempted to accurately describe the circumstances while respecting those limitations.
The purpose of this website is not to ask homeowners to accept my conclusions. Rather, it is to provide information that allows each homeowner to review the evidence and reach their own conclusions.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse