fifteen minutes with oh yeah sure d is the question reasonable this question discretion whether to award the fundamental question of whether they should be awarded not that's not a question of discretion it off the statute and i think that's there for a reason your honor the problem is that we have an individual that that second issue deals for us with the question of whether the onion has been peeled back and if you've seen this property record you know that we have a luminous record we went through an entire history of asking for documents and formally ask documents before doing motions to compel six of them by the time we were done there was a very large ruling with respect to sanctions for discovery but in the end we never got past the five most fundamental back events which is the documents that went to the question of whether there had been document with at least ten entries per page identifying documents were withheld as a privilege what we argued in the trial court was we should have at least been entitle to know what the subject matter of fact means for counsel argued that the subject matter waiver extended only to the specific communication that they decided to disclose to show a reliance on houses that is the finished product the letter to me saying here's our position and we have checked it and said if you're going to rely on counsel you have to show us all the questions on the subject why you're entitled to minutes what other documents you think you're entitled to because we relied on counsel there is a subject matter waiver to show so that we can expect and examine the documents that show they relied on us and then i notice in your brief then the and that subject matter you weren't deciding  to me in case then that would show that you are entitle to those documents at that command center base that litigation are usually not something that is given to the owners i would certainly agree your honor if there was a document that was just about that occasion i would have expected that  it's whether or not they relied on their counsel the question your honour's chicken and egg question is that the that the attorneys letter result from an advocating of the clients position or is that the client's position result from the attorney's opinion and if the all that sounds to me like saying that litigation house on the house of it's representing you that we're paying for to give you corporate advice should be two different people that objection was overruled but since that conflict existence that it was allowed to continue i think you have to be spiel that back to say when somebody is being hired by the association in their corporate capacity to say we need to make a determination here and everybody in the building is helping to pay for that object to be that building should be allowed to do that and should have council tell them here's what you want to do and objective realistically they should be when they get that opinion able to assert it in defense to something play later we relied on houses and in making this determination we had an example in this case that where it didn't work that way which was fine we had one of the  there was at least a question of fact and there was a split of opinion on the question of whether you had a residency requirement that was in forcible or not and bylaws when that decision went forward she was actually done so to advocate specifically that the law was accidentally i think is probably what happened i don't know that they meant for us to see those but in the ten thousand documents or sorry thirty thousand that is to us there were these communications with the board where she said no that's not the position you should be taking she took that argument said no to them they said yes we going to do it she went in and argued that and forgive fifty thousand dollars in attorney's fees later almost twenty percent of which my client has to pay we prevail they certainly would not have been able to argue with a straight face if they had relied on their interest regardless of whether the underlying decision is reversed that that article seven section four decision be reversed itself because we had this people twenty three thousand one hundred up she still hasn't been able to pursue instructor believe the building is still a shambles for now if or that what happens and i think that her basic problem here was when they wanted to be doing everything if she didn't want to be responsible for somebody else who would not pay isn't that what the bottom line is you there are circumstances around her were  discretion is important and there are certain circumstances every kind of been in place that has come out of this district in the last five six six years has found one way or another for the underdog whether it's the windows at carl sandburg village case will this next court if i file another case say yes this is a different back there are circumstances you know there that the questioner just of of discretion in a board whether they're actually sizing their business judgment correctly circumstances in which that standard makes all the sense in the robes of life and we're equipped should actually look at and to some extent how thirteen involve the question of business stuff but business standard when you're making a determination as board member whether you personally can be sued business judgment because you know it came out bad then  if this court finds that the decision under count thirteen for example is supported by the business stuff well i'm not in that context i would be done with counter change other than to say that it should be found that that was done regardless of article seven section four and that the requirements of article seven section four arabella business stuff but let me be clear i don't i'm not sure i follow everything but my understanding is that you're thinking about article seven that issue binding what you can negotiate but if it falls outside what can be negotiated you can always litigate whether it was meant to be within the perimeter or not your honor i don't think my client will be able to unless th in and their position in the breeze are we spending an awful lot of time talking about what is really there back up the fence and there are there with they call their lead defense is something that you're not even speaking to and if we find it there read  here if we look at their lead the fence they went my first concern is with the current status quo of the building and being able to take care of a million dollars of that in foreclosed units that are going to make this building difficult to live in ever unless we find some way to reconcile those problems and my client having her house foreclosed on her is the single largest absent are being able to effect regime change whether we do that through a remained in this case or whether we do that through a second case in either case the biggest problem we have is the interpret it with regard to the restoration correctly and you've been standing up there for twenty minutes and you have spoken to them so i mean i would you know i enjoy reading your position that they were incorrect or you want to talk about this article seven all day long and we will be going back as long as we're not blocked by this article seven section four interpretation to another case to talk about what's going on to try to get a receiver in this building to try to get this place fixed up if we can and we believe we should be able to under content bring plane we had back up the facts that says ok we will demonstrate that regardless just privately whether you agree with the applied aeration we were doing the best we could we got letters from an in accordance with the legal opinions of the lawyers and so what do we get we get an argument that says oh well there's a discovery dispute that we didn't get enough of the attorney client communications but what counsel is ignoring and what counsel was allowed to nauseum during the trial is cross examined the lawyer who wrote those letters about wait where's all the letters that shows what your basis was for the opinions you put in the letters and what the answer he got over and over and over again is the basis for my opinions is in the letter itself it's not in some other unknown documents or some unknown letters it's right in the letter itself my letter says my opinion as to why they're handling the window issue properly is because that that peroration says her based on that the windows or the unit owner's responsibility my opinion that the or just doing the right thing by getting a loan from the harris bank is because the that gratian provision that you talked about that says that they can't do that it doesn't apply to association laws it applies to unit on the laws and so this notion that there are a bunch of documents out there that explain the lawyers opinions it's a false premise and counsel got interrogate the lawyer who both those letters ferk an extended period of time with no limits whatsoever by the judge and no attorney client privilege objections from me because i had no problem with him asking about the judge riley's findings of good faith they have they haven't undermined at all it's based not on a bogus discovery dispute issue and the finally binding thing well i think judge riley got it right because i think he did properly interpret that section of th working on the part where he lost was a traditional claim under which section one thousand ppi claims are that murdoch you make there is that what you're is that what you meant when you said that they didn't satisfy or they didn't that said you're eighty nine to some minutes from two thousand and five i don't know what happened in two thousand and five you're refusing to give them to me but if that really was the facts it would be a classic situation where se of the meetings and just rarely if so will the agree with counsel that that despite the fact that there was a dispute over these for baden transcripts it was the board's job to get those need meeting minutes finalized and he ordered them to do it but that's ahead and finish him and get him to discover it's it's part of the judgment or he gives them ninety days to finalize this is a language in that order that says that they're in violation of their obligation minutes that haven't been approved the so therefore you cannot violate nineteen b into that in the sense of not providing minutes because minutes evan been approved i think that's a potential kind of technical explanation makes sense but the judge rightly wanted to make sure that they were approved first and then they would be tender right and i think he's looking at the practical circumstances here and saying hey when i'm not going taken regarding the two thousand and five was exported at some point cosmic about the part of the claim the record is clear however that the board has not approved any minute subsequent to july two thousand and seven this is an opinion of three years later accordingly judgement is entered in we were denied minutes we were in litigation from two thousand and six until two thousand and ten even by that they had the ability to turn the key and stop this that we will for money from day one forward they chose not to give us the the documents chose not to give us the minutes the court found that their excuse about the minutes was a conscious disregard of that legally imposed duties every element we needed to satisfy content was there except he decided that since we showed no prejudice as we were informed by a court  point out that with respect to each of these three counts that we have before us seven eight thirteen they involve different standards each of them whether we're talking about the business structure which i think is involved on thirteen or whether we're talking about strict statutory construction which is what i think we're talking about find that articles this article is not binding on this is vulgar and it was misinterpreted by the trial court and she therefore should not be bound as a matter of collateral stuff we pointed out to the court that there is a requirement that we do that and i understand your other point that we should be conscious of this case first but in deciding whether to appeal one of the things that we had considered was the fact that we have decisions like lady versus montgomery which says erroneous judgments as well as correct ones are protected by the look you know