records and you're a good owner you can submit a request and within three business days you're entitled to all of the financial books and records of the association they own a condo act is different it says that if you want financial books and records you submit a request and you have to state a proper purpose for the request and you can only get up to ten years worth of the kind of in associations financial books and records and you so c h it has thirty days to g the not for profit corporation act also says if it and this is enough for profit corporation is most kind of in associations are it says if you want the financial books and records you have to send a request and state a proper versus city displays so that seems to be what they're basing your argument but actually from our perspective we really like that case we think it actually supports our position on schedule and cites a lot of different cases but the the essence of what you want  in a statute the state statute then a home rule municipality mann act more restrictive regulations and every single case cited do you have any language here in the that related a bill and the state acts said you can't have a billboard that's bigger than twelve hundred square feet the city displays an exit ordinance that says you can't have a billboard that's greater than four hundred eighty square feet and the because it's less restrictive is what i thought she said i am and that's how the the problem here is that the trapper found it of less of clickable and require documents to be produced in conjunction with the condo the th but if you take a look at this the skid row holding itself in every single case cited escaper again every single case cited by the city of chicago that's about more restrictive for example i'm just going to read the cases from that the city site but you're reading something into scattering that isn't there well i don't believe i am because scared her and basis decision and all these prayer colquitt opinions and cable ultimately came to the conclusion that the assigned ordinance in education was a pallet home rule authority because it was more restrictive and if you take a look at the cases cited by the city for example earlier supreme court case city of chicago versus roman according to the very city they say that the owner a criminal heard a unif is more restrictive than the state which is the pool from the vantage point of the condo b b d got thirty days and you got to make them say certain words like whose ox is getting gored well that's that's somewhat true but if i think if you take a look at what the state  operating properly well not no because if they were to do that that it wouldn't have a proper purpose requirement and ten years worth of books and records in the state in the state saying look if it's if it doesn't deal with financial things and few other issues but i mean here we're focusing on financial issue if you want meeting minutes sunder stiletto give the vehemence if you want terms of formation that's fine what you're saying is with respect to financial books and records you've got to tell us why you need them again it's only limited to ten year so the state is putting a restriction on the unit owners right to procedures for us fall off this ordinance does not agree that it doesn't if actually a relationship between a little girl that's so that's another one of the only issue left under the three part as is the relationship between the ordinance in the state and then the question is where do you go from errors since your own case doesn't necessarily state access it you have to provide a proper purpose and the city ordinance said ok if you have the player problem purpose plus you have a list of documents for example that you want that's more restrictive and that would pass initial muster for my position but in this case where it's more liberal than the state and basically if it official rates the states it it eviscerates the not for profit but i don't think that there could be any dispute with respect to that as it relates to production of financial records but isn't that analysis inconsistent with the constitutional provision that says the powers and functions of home rule unit should be construed liberally rarely they have to be construed liberally to a point but again they have to be a conjunction with preserved on appeal but i'm going to ask anyway it appears to me that judge hall took the greedier fee the greater number of hours the lesser number of hours and the greater dollar amo hour they never in any pleading say that that's unreasonable in fact in their enter a fee petition which was filed two years after the work was perform the lawyer says that her hour her normal hourly rate is around two twenty five to two fifty horses in all ten years ago but saw in this case if you award fees at a fifty percent higher margin than he's paid that's essentially punitive damages against my client that's a windfall for mr palm and that's you know first of all th that first of all the the question is if you look at the case let's says how you write a thesis you take a seat the standard hourly rate that the lawyer charges and then you multiply that by the hours now in this case he agreed to pay two hundred dollars an hour there their fee petition says two years later rates to twenty five an hour she never claims that anywhere that two hundred dollars an hour is unreasonable was the reasonable list of the field org ever litigated before judge trial absolutely absolutely it indeed the the procedure she adopted was the sort of slip in the disability rules look at all fifty four point three we submitted of our fees they submitted their fees we brief the issue of the reasonable this of three hundred dollars per hour we hour would you agree with that i would be unhappy with it but i don't i think we're stuck with when when did he change her that we go from two hundred to three they say he always paid two hundred but when he submitted his fee petition  said you're saying two years three years later day they said that a reasonable fee they got to an affidavit from judge hill us retired judge kind of kill us and he said well reasonable fee is three hundred dollars an hour but he never paid three but i want to make that point very clear because that's you know that it's a somewhat seems at this ingenuous way to go about trying to get a higher fee agreement a few rate and also in the statute it says if you're going to collect a fee because you when you get your get here is a reasonable fee it doesn't say a reasonable fee it says a successful point of gets his reasonable his reasonable fee is two hundred dollars per hour but then say a reach some reasonable fee in the marketplace that's a reasonable reasonableness depends solely on how much he actually paid i think that's it i think in this case it does because you have sophisticated parties this is not like a situation where i have a very unsophisticated i think that if it was thousand dollars per hour all i can say is i would challenge it because i don't think that's reasonable the question here is is it can you go up while the hourly rate and basically penalize my client which i think is it's should we should be entitled to pay we should be required to pay his reasonable fees that if it's reasonable fees were two hundred dollars an hour or two hundred dollars there's no agreement at all in this case with nothing in iraq or an appeal that said it was contingent upon if if you got a successful judgment that it would increase the four hundred dollars an hour it's just two hundred dollars and i guess all of that's all determined that his reasonable fee was three hundred dollars and aren't we bound by the abuse of discretion standard on review by that clearly sees her discretion i think i think that her decision is wrong no matter how you look at it it's clearly an abuse of discretion i think it's contrary to every case cited in this in this litigation is not a question effect collins versus first the case that cited by mr phone again again the same thing in that case it was a contingent fee agreement where there was no agreement as to the hourly rate that would be charged so of course the next case if you have to work then you have to go to an expert and say ok the reasonable rate is x based upon what based upon what the attorney normally charges clients first of all that be the initial starting point for it and here we know that clearly it's not a three hundred dollars an hour at  know i just you know we we like to know who it was that that because sometimes you'll come across something that's not in the briefs and  the city has a strong interest in addressing housing concerns within its borders into that and an act of a condominium ordinance which authorizes i mean owners to access information documents about there a respect yeah i'd love to address that so the language in the cards in the constitution does not use a less restrictive more restrictive and the holdings from the supreme court one after the unless they're specifically preempted by words in the sky actually let me come on already and nowhere does it say the test is conflict and in fact most all these cases had a conflict contrary to what counsel for twenty eight hundred lakeshore argued  there was a direct conflict in scattering and in that case you know he can i mean you can argue that as as the state's judge said advertising signs and be up to twelve hundred square feet so that an ordinance is up for eighty square feet is within them but you know whether something is more or less restrictive depends on which party you're talking about so i think that would be a very poor test it isn't the test but if it was the very protest in fact in  encourages business and markets and in the economy and so we will not allow anything more restrictive than this twelve hundred square feet like the statute says you cannot have anything that you can authority in evanston the case it's a landlord tenant ordinance that's different from the state statute and the court outlines about five six seven differences and i wouldn't say that they are smart they said it was more damages new ordinance he does there are different periods that you have to provide notice to your ten and that that and one in the state statute you don't have to have material breach in the ordinance you did so there are all these differences that are listed including attorney fees that case it addresses the relationship of the ordinance and the statute and what the legislative intent was which is the true bases to make it either a valid  it because it's been great he says it tests it out minus a few part test one is that pertain to the local government affairs of the homo unit and two has it been specifically preempted by those the big words under the constitution and now would be i think the conflict it was the ordinance that would trump i mean the weight written it was very much that the ordinance would have trumped but they found it was not there was no conflict and the where there was in the ordinance it said you had a period  were applying for permission to subdivide and you could have said that this the city had sixty days to approve it or not approve it but then there was no remedy if they didn't act on a state statute provided remedy the court said well they're not inconsistent w asking for we're asking for the records that they hear there's nowhere that we're asking for more than that and even if his test which they definitely argue that it's not or the city limits that that is not the the the less restrictive more restrict for conflict is not the test but even if it were our case would fit that and i understand friend saying that one hundred eighty square feet is more restrictive than twelve hundred square feet we're saying you you have only three days of thirty days american rule under the american rule successful against don't get their fees unless there's a statute or agreement of the parties and here we have an ordinance we have an ordinance of raising tourney fees so we fit this exception twenty eight hundred  naperville this court in glenview which twenty eight hundred itself cites in glenview the court expressly rejects neighbor bell and says that it cannot stand after rome it is wrong and very clearly says that furthermore the i think this is a case where we can see some of the actual results of the city ordinance in practice they stopped all the documents that were finally provided three years after i filed just this is a what do you mean that well the the the government has decided that in order to enforce the ordinance that the prevailing party should receive the fees to encourage others to make certain that other defendants are the church so if there's a windfall they will do this and others like them other kind of any this will not instead of a baby th ree days stall out and try to avoid production which of course will lead to the the whole point of production is not just to see the documents but to get to whether they're properly managed in this  church that is meant to attract other litigants and their lawyers to get arrested a private attorney general this is particularly important right now because the city of chicago is going through a crisis financial and you know he's coming back in many areas so enforcement of this ordinance well have to rely more and more on the private lives against acting as private attorney general  relates to twenty eight hundred as well they get they get to go with the rate of two hundred when three hundred is the proper market value is judge will determine yes and in fact get the documents the contempt proceedings and things like that and so i've been going pro se since my resources out here to this is right now in the last point i would make is that in the very beginning when when it's unconstitutional nothing  hall in her summary judgment again relief on those things that she found there was no factual dispute she found there was evidence really just huge and we had lengthy discovery and we watched the trial seven days proper purpose that's contained in my appendix as exhibit exhibit c and it's on the record on appeal at one zero four one so he did not there was no finding at all that there was a proper purpose because the the problem i have with