i mean you can if you want to absence from where i am yes there was a lack of courage because there was that front steps to his apartment the doors weren't wide enough to get the wheelchair through there were problems inside his well which are required to be  two years of the completion of the design the construction it was in fact six or seven years after the design of construction that the complaint was filed in federal district court but in terms of when he encounters a condition any relief in terms of the modification of we've heard about earlier offer to pay for the modifications and self is refused under the your honor there were some discussions with the management company about modifying putting a ramp in and in the end he requested every single combination in the end they indicated that you have to pay for that himself those defendants have settled with this plaintiffs and those issues are not before th units they were no longer owners of these units and that was a new owner a new management company that were committed those file nations and those violations have been resolved through a settlement now mr garcia has brought a claim for the failure to design  limitations begins to run at the design and construction they said that that was a discrete event that's the violation and if you don't file within two years of the design of construction the statute of limitations has run as  what that essentially does is it shifts the burden of modifications and costs that fair to the tenant because now of course you can ask for a modification and they have to allow it if it's reasonable but he has to pay for it and he has to pay for that to change it when he sat and i don't believe that's what congress intended when they acted a civil rights statute for the protection of the disabled part of your answer you said liability is cut off for when when the design of construction violations serenity right ok so the only way the only way they can escape it is to remedy the problem now how do you respond to  opposing counsel's argument that well that's fine but they don't control or own the property there's nothing effectively that they can do to remedy the violation well property owners can do is work with order to remedy those problems and so these sorts of things can be achieved the old st andrews case right exactly if we were to adopt your rule to the current or let's say the first purchased from the original bill if he were not pressured to enough to include some kind of in the family for cation was a real estate purchase contract in aggrieved a person may commence a civil action within two years the definition of the brief person is provided in the act as well and it is a person who claims to have been injured by discriminatory housing practice or believes that such a person will be of housing and that's the phrase that the old st andrews case the sixth circuit felt was a very very relevant in finding that you can't look at this kind of construction in isolation from the entire subsection as a practical protect the disabled and other protected status is and and still that the u s supreme court has a longstanding that the the statute is to be construed in order to further the this is if you got the car and you couldn't sue on the car because of a design defect because there were two years statute of limitations on the car and that's the problem here if i could sum up i know i'm out of time but the  the building was built more than two years prior to his figure see a movie and i think we would all agree that when they designed it constructed that was an injury to mr garcia even though he didn't know about it because it reduces the  pool of accessible housing in idaho to the disabled so that was an injury that he had no way of knowing until he encountered those very years when he first visited there and this court has applied the discovery rule of these types of cases in the rule in eighty eight cases the statue of limitations section is worded virtually identically to the fair housing act therefore we won't apply that rule and however in this case we are constrained by those hundred eighty he was very surprised when he received a complaint by the idaho fair housing counselor he was he for example when a builder builds a building presumably they have their own constructed notice of all  removing the offending condition you know what's been brought out by you and then the other argument is that look typically builders sell off their property they build a mary i'm not there to run apartments differently so they won't be in possession or control that may be true but when they design a building and there are flaws in the building be a russian flaws or you know failure to implement building it seems a little strange to think that the builder is off the hook because somebody who didn't know about the condition wasn't around to sue unless maybe it was a you know an activist disabled ri so given that sort of paradox what is so bad about saying to a builder that look when you sell your building if you're worried about downstream liability for defects in this building her should be done to determine whether they are in compliance and i think one thing that might help is to when you think about the attempt to apply the continuing violation theory it's not an attempt to apply c continuing condition theory and so these cases that have looked at whether the continuing violation theory should even apply here look at whether there was some ongoing act or act or practice with builder in this case was to build a building where the doors didn't conform ok and you want to say well the practice was really a construction decision and it's terminated i they don't but you're saying he you know that they the disabled person has a remedy you know that's not a remedy that's your fortuity maybe the reasonable accommodation or you know putting the burden on the current operators  i still have a little trouble understanding why the condition turns out to be an act of discrimination by the current owners they didn't put they didn't create it that's not their policy it just happens to be a condition of  on behalf of the architect robert stewart i'll be brief here we've discussed these issues quite extensively but i think this is the kind of case that really illustrates the problem that we have most of the other cases that  have been discussed really did not involve major expansive designers of these buildings have we talked a lot about the fact that there are current managers there are people bought from from mr brockway these these apartment complexes that the architect though has really has no way whatsoever to protect his interests in this following this design of these buildings where if he designs a faulty building part of what if and that's why we're here today is because the design was not in compliance with the f h a however he's even a step further away from being able to ultimately result as liability than that than the builder as he designed it he has no move friends his work is done that is correct and so i'm not entirely sure why he's at the west point today than he was on obviously the counsel for the designers and constructors they want to get their clients off of and i understand that but i think we're all sympathetic to the position because it is a concern