landing strip or the lake other than as an owner of any lot retained by them that's the plain language of the document the plaintiff's brief says that language should be king through to mean before five in addition to the lack of any time restriction being placed in the freeman regarding the assessed for maintenance inclusion of the word maintenance in both paragraphs thirteen and fourteen of the agreement have a different case but it's included it's included in both paragraphs and the inclusion of maintenance in both paragraphs thirteen and fourteen and the essence of any time restrictions on when assessments can be made for maintenance showed the intent of the document there the assessments could be made at any time and are not limited by the sale of five wives if we agree with your argument what effect are we giving to it given your interpretation well i believe under the language of the document what that is is automatically the best the owners of the un so construction giving preference to a clause in a document which requires something to be done to effect the purpose of the document is applicable in this case because in order to assess the cost of maintenance among the owners of the under paragraph thirteen which we were discussing no action is required to continue the maintenance obligation prior to the sale of five wives so an affirmative act is required to change them the only way to construction of the documents the defendants suggest the application of a rule of instruction that i am acutely in the document must be construed against graft i don't believe that that rule is applicable in this case refers to the maintenance being automatically eliminate it divest the owner's of maintenance response after five hours or so if does not prohibit assessment of the maintenance fees under paragraph were keen of agreement there is no specific condition preceding language in the dock but i think the language as it exists here the condition preceding it would have to be inferred and the inferring of a condition preceding created by paragraph thirteen would result in a forfeiture of the right of the as provided in the agreement so i believe there is no specific condition preceding paragraph thirteen or fourteen paragraph thirteen should not be true just why condition three c on the other argument raised which is not addressed by the cocktail court dealt with the defendant's argument that a statement made by a trust officer in two thousand and four somehow determined the construction of the agreement lay person on the interpretation of a legal document is not determine the effect of the dock the construction is a pure question of law to be made from the language of the document by thirteen and listen to the agenda discuss whatever needs to be discussed have their input heard but four or five watts or occupied it would have been the full were pointed by the pro the ability to be assessed we have a trust agreement arising ten years late the trust and article seven explicitly says and article seven dealt with trust ours article seventy six but specifically said the anything any individual now we have to get from the rose being obligated to maintain all of the subdivision until five o'clock or so and we have to get at the back those rules no longer part with us and we get back to the bank by the trust agreement the trust powers under article seven and t i think they have also step into their shoes after the maintenance obligation and i think what some men stacked is when the eaves were down i think they were  first so long as either one of them owns the adjacent property that was otherwise strive to be to me that certainly show that then it would be somewhat of a different story but it's in there so that the roles acknowledged yes we have personal rights privileges obligations and duties under the owner so if one of those this still is a business they are selling lots to make money if you're one of the first four you get to buy it and you don't have any makes up the patients till i've lost herself or is going to be more attractive if you say if i save you are you it oh but here's a here's a cost that you going to have to incur besides principal interest real estate taxes you often have remains i don't know if you could buy it all right your honor but if you had to borrow you want to certainly house for that so i think number one marketability too would be control don't know how long the rows have this property but people have an affinity for their property and as part of that affinity they may want to keep control until five watts or so paragraph well i will say this that's entirely possible because they create a subdivision in seventy two and i don't know how old they were rose i don't know how it works but they created in seventy two and in ten years only three lots of soul so now they think continuity how are we going to you know maintain this we're not going to live forever or we get it well let's you know they go to m around what are we going to do here this rebel camp says well we can put the property in a trust have a financial institution which is not going to be a measure of life of a human individual but it will be in existence as long as the stores are open to be the the last small issue is deposition of mary perks and i believe it to be relevant and admissible she was having taken her her testimony is relevant and admissible under the seven hundred one the last is that it's not based on any scientific technical or other ex case and it's not she should requirement and that is he needs to win fifty percent of the lights are a group of occupy residents and the purpose of that requires i believe as i indicated in my every paragraph owner's control of the board was protected and that it was protected i believe from the face of the document to have a situation to protect him in a situation like this that is where the lights did sel