I am trying to help a friend decipher his condo docs and ran into a great grammatical question:
"Other than themselves, Owners may only allow their parking space(s) to be used by a residing tenant of their unit."
There is disagreement about what this sentence means. What are the rules for the use of the word "their"?
Does the unit belong to the tenant or the owner?
e.g
"other than themselves, the army may only allow their tanks to be used by a reserve soldier in their unit"
Who does the unit belong to, the army or the reserve?
The meaning of this sentence has great consequences for whether or not any car other than an owner's car can be in an owner's spot.
there's a very popular notion among citizens in countries whose legal systems are derived from English law that the "letter of the law" is the fundamental interpretation of legal language, right down to semantics.
it's not true. in the above example, any "reasonable person" (which is English law's measuring stick for interpretation, not semantic wordplay) would likely understand that the intent is to tell the condo unit's tenants that the only people allowed to use the unit's parking space are the residents of said unit. that is, in this case, "their" is referring to the owner of the unit, despite clearer language being available.
unfortunately for your friend, his condo board will not let him permit others to use his parking space because of their poor grasp of legalese. nor would a court favor such an effort as supported by semantic evidence.
sobetraveler said:
Does the unit belong to the tenant or the owner?
e.g
"other than themselves, the army may only allow their tanks to be used by a reserve soldier in their unit"
Who does the unit belong to, the army or the reserve?
The meaning of this sentence has great consequences for whether or not any car other than an owner's car can be in an owner's spot.
I agree with drasil that, as written, the unit and the parking space(s) belong to Owners.
But I am confused by your assertion that use of the parking is restricted only to owners based on this interpretation. The sentence seems to be saying quite the opposite -- that residing tenants of the unit are permitted to use the parking space(s), even if they are not the Owner, if the Owner allows it. Owners are not permitted, however, to allow non-resident third persons to use the parking space(s).
"But I am confused by your assertion that use of the parking is restricted only to owners based on this interpretation."
Ah, it was a partial thought… what i meant was that if the owner resided in his own unit, and had an extra space (as my friend does), then he would not be allowed to let even a temporary guest (such as an overnight girlfriend or family member) park in his extra space.
The rest of the story would be that he couldn't rent the space to another resident of the building who resides in "their" unit… instead, the owner can only move out of his unit, and then let the residing tenant of HIS OWN unit use the space.
Unfortunately for my friend the board has now taken that position, after many years of interpreting it more liberally or ignoring it all together. The association is now in the business of renting their own units, so it seems they are trying to quash competition from within.
Appreciate your replies.
Glenn said:
... use of the parking is restricted only to owners ...
off-topic:
'restricted only to' seems to enjoy very popular uses, with 'only' playing the role of amplifier for 'restricted to.' Otherwise 'only' apparently changes nothing except maybe by inviting misinterpretations like, for instance this from the quote above: 'To non-owners parking is unrestricted.'