[brief] The [...] (“Condominium”) is a residential condominium situated in [...], New Jersey.  See Plaintiff’s Statement of Material Facts (“SOMF”) at ¶¶2-3 (Pa39).  The Condominium was originally constructed as garden style apartments.  See SOMF at ¶1 (Pa38).  The property and improvements were acquired in the early 1980’s by the co-defendant, [...] (“Developer”).  See SOMF at ¶2 (Pa39).  The Condominium was created on June 29, 1983 when the Developer recorded a Master Deed (“Master Deed”) submitting the property to the New Jersey Condominium Act (“Condominium Act”) and condominium form of ownership.  See SOMF at ¶¶3-4 (Pa39).  The Master Deed identifies 136 condominium units (“Unit” or “Units”) each with a corresponding interest in the common elements.  See Pa173-177.  However, Section 8(e) of the Master Deed requires that one of the unsold Units be reserved as a common element for purposes of housing the Condominium’s superintendent.  See SOMF at ¶12 (Pa40).  The Developer designated Unit 74 as a common element for housing the superintendent (“Unit”).  See SOMF at ¶13 (Pa40).  Contemporaneously therewith, the Developer formed the [...] Association, Inc.  (“Plaintiff” or “Association”) to operate and maintain the Condominium, including its ‘common elements. ’  See SOMF at ¶5 (Pa39).  The Developer had full control over the Association from June 29, 183 until 1987.  See SOMF at ¶6 (Pa39).  The Developer and Developer-controlled Association entered into an agreement wherein the Association would pay rent to lease Unit 74 from the Developer.  See SOMF at ¶16 (Pa41).  This arrangement continued for the entire time the Developer controlled the Association.  See SOMF at ¶17 (Pa41).  After control of the Association transitioned to the unit owners, the leasing arrangement continued and was never questioned by the unit owners.  Id.  From 1983 to April 7, 2016, the Defendants leased Unit 74 to the Association knowing it was a ‘common element’ and that the Developer lacked marketable title thereto.  See SOMF at ¶¶19-20 (Pa41).  On November 6, 2015, the Developer sent the Association a notice to terminate the lease agreement because it was “electing to sell the unit to a third party. ”  See Defendants’ Counter Statement of Material Facts (“CSMOF”) at ¶13 (Pa189).  The notice conveniently provided the Association with the right to purchase Unit 74, and the parties subsequently entered into contract negotiations.  See CSOMF at ¶14 (Pa189).  On November 24, 2015 the Association’s counsel sent an e-mail to the Developer’s counsel explaining a unit owner vote to approve the transaction would be held in December “per para. 8(e) of the Master Deed. ”  See Pa198.  On December 22, 2015, the unit owners held a meeting at which the purchase of Unit 74 was approved by 81% of those in attendance.  See CSMOF at ¶17 (Pa195); see also Pa201.  On April 7, 2016, the Developer executed a bargain and sale deed in consideration of $199,000.00.  See SOMF at ¶21 (Pa42).  In connection with the sale of Unit 74, co-defendants [...] and [...] attested that no other persons have legal rights in Unit 74 except for utility companies.  See SOMF at ¶27 (Pa42).  On April 6, 2022, the Association filed an action asserting various causes of action against the Developer and the individual Wilf Defendants, which was answered by the Defendants.  The Plaintiff subsequently filed a six-count Amended Complaint on December 21, 2022 as to the same defendants.  See Pa1.  A responsive pleading was filed by the Defendants on February 15, 2023 (“Answer”)  See Pa20.  LEGAL ARGUMENT I.