measurements is that on the record if it's not on the record i suppose we should madness well there's different different kinds of suggestions out but could you say probably with some kind of it was described go at least as perhaps eight feet out where this new door would so with with that appropriate eight new feet on there's a difference between the standard imposed under thirty nine which says that it would which works to the degree of interest of the other condo o and the concept of the memphis because the standard under thirty one deals with the right speak for the party the minimalist deals with the rights of the courts the but if it has minimal value the courts will not administratively occupy themselves with that and i think the public's a third party acquire the agreement of just the owners i have therefore a can you clear that up for us that that that entire discussion should be outside the record that was settlement negotiations between permit this if they could get the agreement of all of the owners and the twenty third floor but the act i'm sorry the the statute requires the consent of read in ordination with forty if it means very common areas which are not accessible to other condominium that's based on floor ceilings are common elements except for their finish surfaces the the poking a hole in the ceiling to combine two units does not require a reallocation of the common enters going into the hallway in that in that case there was no discussion of whether the error that the developer had made when allocating the common area was a minister or not it just simply was because they have to be reallocated you go to forty and it has to be one hundred percent so if this area at the end of the hall on the twenty third floor is off to the association as a result of this action every hallway on the floor under a precedent here absolutely and wouldn't that have an impact on the size of each of these units that are affected and potentially impact the resale value of all of those units absolutely and i think in our briefing pointed out this would be a rule of law that could have five eight unit condominium i want that's why i brought a board of it or to direct i represent a lot of which the directors are being sick and they always want to find an objective way to make decisions on their questions if if we have a de minimu standard then you've got a board of directors constantly trying to decide what is tremendous and what is not what you know maybe we should wash out here that there is nothing in the language of the statute that even uses this term de minimus the language well a couple of cases talk about a parking space that couldn't be allocated to one owner without taking away the condominium rights of the other unit owners that the case involving the balcony extension i mean that question there i suppose it could have been argued that what is this person i'm the lowest unit really losing  well and that balcony case i've lived with they says where where the improvement to the balcony was such that it took away the the total used by the economy   percentage of voters ship without the agreement of yellers all of us now in this case the board did propose how to go about doing this they did did they come up with some arrangement in terms and getting the approval they wanted six thousand dollars i mean that is in the record it was in the context it's in the context of settlement go ahead for stand but the point is the board was willing to work i'm not i'm not superficial changes have to be accomplished in order to combine to transform the separate entrance units into a singles and fridge so the board carr not violate the act and so the fact that the declaration may have been more clear does not mean i'm not sure about that because i think it has some provisions the act itself provides to the extent that it has or will reach of considers itself have discretion already then its provision in its own agreement should certainly be a major and doesn't make any sense the complaint for declaratory judgment sets out all of this information but had back for example been accepted by the struggles in this circumstance there's nothing to say that no other owner simply wanted to break through the walls that actually do join these contests that the board wouldn't have to do anything as far as that i mean that all in all or course is a majority of the board to approve it and a simple majority and so that would have been readily  section thirty one of the condo act and the judge at the hearing made a comment when after she made her ruling she said listen the amount of space we're talking here is the minimum as i just want to clarify that this is not a situation where there's n and that the reallocation would also determine your property based on this one so i could start going to change the assessment for the entire building but it will increase your share of right and decrease everybody else and if not why should they get i'm not sure what criteria assessors actually use i don't think it's just where footage i think of and may actually dovetail with what section thirty one says is that is this property necessary practical for use by other unit of other unit owners since i think that the the the individual units are still assessed on the basis of taking the total assessment for the for the entire building statute says it doesn't say in the statute that the that the rationale is that the common elements have to be inaccessible to unit holders that's what opponents want to do they want to do are the language of the statute based on basic statutory construction analysis that the fundamental precept that we cannot bend or workforce or sentence meaningless or superfluous what's happening here we're not dealing with a worker clause we're we're what the pilots are trying to do is completely ignore an entire subzero graph of the statute and it says that a common element should be reallocated and this is only about going to combinations this is not about taking away  taking away balconies or parking spaces it only deals with the context of the the the reserve instance in which unit owners own combining units and it says they ship the board shop is it really about whether it's parking space or court or space or is it about and in many owner their rights and what has been established under the statute and the declaration the act sense that once these interests sucked you cannot change them without three minutes of all and isn't that the heart of an dominie association ownership that they have it right they have an ownership right in the common elements and it cannot be changed without the approval of all of those owners absolutely your honor and i believe that's the reason why the statute was passed in ninety seven we have these cases are you versus dudley's other cases in which we're dealing with  another wall and their own door and take the space that's generally considered a common element and owned by and each owner in that building he has an interest in me and i see it be subject to you separate entrances and then something connecting i mean there's all sorts of other options that they could exist that would require taking some of the common elements isn't that true yet i would this is the preferred way by them to take a position  portion of the head away i would say that there's nothing in the record to say that that was a viable option for my clients and i'll just say if you look at the regular season a little so the circumstances for that to be the only viable option no you it was a fluke yes i think it's five feet maybe or i it's a few feet it's it's five feet from the the end of the hallway so their doors were they have two doors that are these each other if this is allowed to go forward then feel refugee and above all ways for every floor of this building somebody could be setting up stakes in grabbing a piece of the hallway well if every four had to give you no of common interest ownership impacts every single unit owner's property taxes there's no question about it the amount of their annual and special assessments as well as the resale value of go into court say judge we want to take this eight square feet or eight hundred sixty cubic feet and we want to put the door in because this is what we thought we could do when we bought the place the board said you could do it but you have to do doors and perhaps doing away with the other are keeping them both for that matter having human princes to a common human and the rest of your combination takes place inside and i'm sure you attention paid to what one legislator of the house may have said but i also what i do with four e under your interpretation we have to read them all together now what do we do with or even because it sends the percentage ownership interest in the common appellate has tried to redirect the focus to that but it's a stretch to say that for he talks about when there is a minor reallocation of limited common elements it says that the poor can't decide to say you know what order you were on three for twenty extra square feet for their unit and it's hard to imagine how that would affect resale value and why that wouldn't i mean what you generated you have to pay one hundred fifty dollars a month license to have this extra space nobody else has and is now taking away from their heirs and lastly get permission of just the people on a meeting and suggested to the condominium owners that here's what we propose to let them do this if they do this this this and they have we suggest if you vote to permit them to do it i mean it would be put to those  owners i believe in that case of the board should have had to wait out a criteria of the minutes or what have you as to why the space is reasonable or practical for use by other owners and if they did that we may have had a lawsuit which would have been more of an issue of fact where i would be passe on it to begin with the the act says that once the ownership amount has been determined it remains constant unless agreed to by the others every one of those owners in that building ownership interest in the condominium in the hallway gets expressed their amount of ownership is actually expressed a percentage of this common area is given to them so i mean it's being taken away and it was some you know representative who whose friend wanted to break down or you know tear apart two walls or a wall adjoining two units and that's what he said was the reason for necessary and practical because the inside the limited common elements that are owned work really useful or practical for anybody else tearing down the wall inside those two units wasn't really going to make too much difference in terms of use or necessity or anyone else in the building and supposed to look for a door which they actually have a specific percentage of ownership right to i don't i don't see the difference between a parking space you can't take away because all of the owners own part of their parking space versus a hallway i don't know if that legislator was trying to push for the way which the miss that appellant is arguing for that says it's got to be inaccessible to other unit orders but all i know is that the final legislation that was passed by the legislature says the board shall permit the combination unless those common elements are shown to be necessary or practical use from other owners and could not be really a circumstance where yeah why not a whole between might units but unfortunately it's a weight bearing wall and that would be a limitation on your ability to knock a hole in the wall can't  legislature use that term practical to say listen this serves no purpose to the association this case were were twenty something from another unit and i think that the legislature use