# Opinion Interpretation

An attorney (non-authoritative) opinion, regarding the algebra of calculating financial shares:

The Association can only disburse the surplus funds to the unit owners according to their share of the common surplus (which is 1/25 per unit). The actual costs to make repairs to the unit is not relevant as the funds are not disbursed according to how much it costs to make the repairs. Thus, I don't see a basis for the Association to provide any owner with more than their share of the insurance proceeds.

Given:

The total awarded by the insurance for repairs is \$2600.

Assume the reimbursable repair expenses are:

• \$25 for shareholder #1 and
• \$70 for shareholder #2
• \$5 for shareholder #3
• Assume there are 23 other shareholders

There are two diametrically different interpretations of the opinion:

1. Interpretation #1: distribution = (\$2600/25)-unit's expenses = 4 different distribution amounts
2. Interpretation #2: distribution = (\$2600-all_expenses)/25 = 100 = same for all

# QUESTIONS

1. Can one of the interpretations be eliminated by the opinion?
2. Which interpretation is the better fit and why?
3. What is the meaning of 'common surplus' and how should this be calculated?

I leave it to the wisdom of the crowd to determine best fit. Thank you

• Is this an assignement from a college or law school class? Commented Sep 17, 2018 at 2:51
• @BlueDogRanch No: it is not an academic problem. Looking forward to your insightful response
– 411
Commented Sep 17, 2018 at 3:34