Ward v Owners Corporation PS723358X-1 (Owners Corporations) [2025] VCAT 823

1. The Tribunal declares that the respondents have failed to act in accordance with their obligation of due care and diligence under section 5 of the Owners Corporations Act 2006 (Vic) in passing resolutions which did not apportion electricity charges (up to the year ended 31 May 2020), the Whittles contract (from 2017/2018 year to date) and the facility management contract (for the 2018/2019 year to date) between the unlimited and limited owners corporations.
2. By 14 November 2025 the first respondent is directed to file and serve

(a) a breakdown of the facility management contract; and

(b) a breakdown of the Whittles contract,

allocating the costs of each contract between the five owners corporations.

1. The proceeding is listed for a directions hearing before Member Rowland on 28 November 2025 at 9:30am to make further orders to give effect to the declaration granted in Order 1.
2. Any party may apply for costs of the proceeding by filing and serving an application for costs by 31 October 2025. Any application for costs must include the total costs and disbursements claimed so costs may potentially be fixed under section 111(a) of the VCAT Act. Any application for costs will be heard at the directions hearing on 28 November 2025.
3. Liberty to apply.
4. Costs reserved.

1. This dispute concerns the apportionment of expenses between owners corporations in a large residential development with 5 owners corporations. The applicant lot owners contend that costs have been unfairly allocated to Owners Corporation No. 1 ("OC1") when the 4 limited owners corporations are receiving a benefit for which they are not making a proper contribution.
2. The subject subdivision is known as Toorak Park in Armadale. It has 474 residential lots, made up of 18 townhouse lots and 456 apartment lots. All lots in the subdivision are affected by OC1 which includes the gardens, the swimming pool, spa, gymnasium, library, meeting rooms, 30 visitor car spaces and two roads into the subdivision. There are 456 apartments across 10 apartment towers which are affected by 3 limited owners corporations. Owners Corporation No 3 ("OC3") affects 188 apartments, Owners Corporation No 4 ("OC4") affects 98 apartments and Owners Corporation No 5 ("OC5") affects 166 apartments. Owners Corporation No 2 ("OC2") contains the car parking lots for the lot owners affected by OC3 and OC4. OC 5 has a car park below the residential tower for OC5 lot owners. The townhouse owners have carparks within their own lots. The owners of the townhouse lots are only affected by OC1. The other lots are affected by at least one other owners corporation.

1. The plan of subdivision was first registered in 2017 with the first budget and fees being levied for the year ended 31 May 2018. By October 2018, Mr Ward, the first applicant, had been co-opted onto the committee and discovered that the electricity charges for the whole of the subdivision had been allocated to OC1. Although electricity was initially budgeted for OC1 at $25,000 the actual electricity charges in that year were $133,177.33. The budget for OC1 anticipated that electricity would be separately metered for each owners corporation. It transpired that the developer had not arranged for installation of the electricity meters for each owners corporation. The respondents considered it too difficult to apportion the electricity charges so the total electricity charges for the whole subdivision were charged to OC1. Allocating the whole of the electricity charges to OC1 had little impact on the 456 apartment owners because it made little difference whether they paid the electricity through OC1 or through the unlimited owners corporations. However, it made a big difference to the townhouse owners only affected by OC1 because they were contributing to the electricity costs of the whole subdivision including the residential towers.
2. In or about November 2019 separate electricity meters were installed which has now resulted in OC1 being allocated approximately 3% of the total electricity charges to the subdivision.
3. In the first year of operations Mr Ward contributed $459.59 (35/10142 of $133,177.33) when his share should have been $13.78. (3% of 35/10142 of $133,177.33). From the year commencing 1 June 2022 electricity charges have been allocated to each owners corporation in accordance with usage measured by the newly installed meters. The ongoing allocation of electricity charges is not an issue in these proceedings. The reallocation of electricity charges was the catalyst for the claim made to the Tribunal.
4. On 27 July 2021 the applicants commenced this proceeding seeking apportionment of other fees, charges and services between the owners corporations, including fire safety, the Whittles (owners corporation manager) contract, facility management contract, security, insurance, gas and water usage and sought restitution of overcharging including electricity charges up to 31 May 2021. These fees and charges have been largely allocated to OC1. The applicants contend that the fees and charges should be shared amongst the 5 owners corporations.
5. On 26 May 2022, following a compulsory conference the parties agreed to appoint a third-party accountant to prepare the budgets for each of the owners corporations based on "consumption and utilisation." As far as the Tribunal is aware no formal terms of settlement were entered into by the parties. Instead, the Tribunal recorded a note in the Order dated 26 May 2022 following the compulsory conference.
6. On 21 July 2022 William Buck (Vic) Pty Ltd prepared a report which reviewed the budget for OC1 for the year ended 31 May 2023. The applicants contend that the report did not accord with the settlement reached at the compulsory conference in that it did not address the allocation of expenses between owners corporations based on "consumption and utilisation".
7. The proceeding was reinstated. At a directions hearing on 1 June 2023 the parties agreed that "the applicant is seeking to agitate the matters in the Points of Claim and not anything which was said or done in compulsory conference." That is, the applicants are not seeking to enforce to any settlement agreement.
8. On 18 December 2023, following a further compulsory conference, the parties agreed to appoint William Buck as special referee under section 95 of the VCAT Act for the purpose of providing an opinion in this proceeding. The parties agreed to a letter of instruction which required William Buck to produce draft budgets for the five owners corporations allocating a list of expenses between the 5 owners corporations based on anticipated consumption and utilisation.
9. On 30 May 2024 William Buck, as special referee, prepared the proposed budgets for the year ended 31 May 2025. In arriving at the budgets William Buck determined that some expenses were specific to particular owners corporations and should be attributed to the relevant owners corporations accordingly. The specific expenses were auditor fees, bore water, electrical, fire systems, keys and fobs, meter reading, pest control, electricity and water usage. Apart from fire systems there is no dispute about these specific allocations between owners corporations.
10. William Buck determined that the following expenses were "collective expenses" and should be allocated to OC1: building management, grounds maintenance, insurance, legal fees, Whittles contract, pool/spa repairs and maintenance, security - patrols and gas.
11. The budgets for the 5 owners corporations were prepared accordingly and passed by the 2024 Annual General Meeting.
12. The matter proceeded to hearing on 12 August 2025. Still in contention were the allocation of expenses for insurance, security, facility management fees, Whittles contract, water, fire systems and restitution for these expenses and electricity charges.
13. The applicants relied on the evidence of Mr Ward and the evidence of Ms Tran, a chartered accountant and Mr Ward's personal accountant.
14. The respondents relied upon the evidence of:

(a) Mr Saunders, former state manager for Whittles, a very experienced owners corporation manager with additional qualifications as a licensed real estate agent and qualified property valuer, and

(b) Mr Neil Brennan, director of William Buck, the special referee appointed by the Tribunal. Despite Mr Brennan's extensive experience in accounting for owners corporations I placed little weight on his report because it did not set out the basis of his opinion that the collective expenses could not be apportioned. Additionally, Mr Brennan readily accepted in cross examination that he relied on Mr Lockett's view, (the owners corporation manager), that the collective expenses could not be apportioned. I have not accepted Mr Brennan's opinion that some of the collective expenses cannot be reasonably apportioned in the context of the subject subdivision.

1. The issues in dispute call for a determination of the proper distribution of collective or shared expenses between the owners corporations. It is necessary to understand the framework in which the five owners corporations were created.
2. Upon registration of the plan, five owners corporations were created. OC1 is the unlimited owners corporation. As set out in the schedule of lot liability and entitlement all lots are affected by OC1. OC1 is unlimited in the sense that is has all the functions and powers under the Owners Corporations Act 2006.
3. Four limited owners corporations were also created, OC2, OC3, OC4 and OC5. The limited owners corporations are limited to the common property allocated to each owners corporation on the plan. The lots which are affected by each limited owners corporation are set out in the respective schedules of lot liability and entitlement for those owners corporations. Under section 27C(3) of the Subdivision Act 1988 (Vic) the members of the limited owners corporations have the exclusive use and responsibility for the common property affected by the limited owners corporations.
4. The statement provided to the Registrar under section 27B of Subdivision Act 1988 (Vic) on registration of the plan described the functions of OC1 to manage the land affected by the owners corporation (except the use of any common property affected by a limited owners corporation). The statements under section 27C of the Subdivision Act 1988 (Vic) described the functions of OC2, OC3, OC4 and OC5 to manage the use of the common property within the land affected by the owners corporations.
5. Multiple owners corporations are created in large residential, commercial and mixed developments so that the costs of running and maintaining buildings can be allocated to each owners corporation making for a fairer distribution of costs amongst lot owners.
6. The cost of maintaining and repairing common property for each owners corporation is usually a straightforward allocation.
7. A dispute has arisen in this proceeding in the sharing of administrative and service costs between owners corporations. The issue is whether the disputed administrative and service costs are more fairly distributed through OC1 or the through the limited owners corporations. Each subdivision is unique. What might work well in one subdivision might not work well in another. In the context of this subdivision, as was seen with the electricity charges, if the shared services are allocated only to OC1, then the townhouse owners might be carrying a greater share of the burden if the charges are not allocated to the limited owners corporations.
8. There is no legislative direction as to how administrative costs and charges are to be shared between owners corporations. Specifically, the benefit principle which applies for some charges within an owners corporation does not apply to charges between owners corporations. Instead, owners corporations must use common sense and practicality in dividing administrative and service costs between owners corporations depending on the unique distribution of lot liability between all lots across all owners corporations.
9. In carrying out this function, owners corporations must act honestly and in good faith and exercise due care diligence as required by section 5 of the Owners Corporations Act 2006 (Vic).
10. From 2017 to date the owners corporation has passed resolutions allocating the disputed charges to OC1. The applicants, by further amended points of claim dated 29 August 2025, allege the resolutions allocating the disputed charges to OC1 are oppressive and unfairly prejudice and discriminate against the townhouse lot owners in accordance with section 167(1)(d) of the Owners Corporations Act 2006 (Vic).

1. With one in four Victorians living in an apartment affected by an owners corporation and more people expected to live in an apartment, it is imperative that costs are shared equitably. Unfair sharing of costs leads to disharmony and dysfunction within owners corporations. I have reviewed the very small number of reported decisions on the allocation of costs between owners corporations. The cases show that the Tribunal will re-allocate costs which can be attributed to a particular owners corporation.
2. In Sukeda v Owners Corporation 2 Plan No 529462 [2016] VCAT 533 , a claim not too dissimilar to this proceeding, Member Dea made a declaration at the request of an applicant lot owner in the unlimited owners corporation that certain expenses were the expenses of the Owners Corporation No 2. Member Dea required Owners Corporation No 2 to refund the unlimited owners corporation for the wrongly allocated expenses. The proceeding was defended on the basis that the unlimited owners corporation was estopped from claiming back the funds because it had validly passed budgets at the annual general meetings. The estoppel defence was not successful.
3. In Drakoulis v Owners Corporation 1 Plan No PS505364V [2017] VCAT 1134, the applicant contended that resolutions allocating costs between the unlimited and limited owners corporations operated so that they were "unfairly prejudicial to her, in breach of the requirements of s167(1)(d) of the Owners Corporations Act 2006 (Vic). Member Sweeney considered apportionment of expenses between the unlimited and limited owners corporation. In awarding the applicant a small sum, Member Sweeney said "If a cost can be shown to be attributed to a particular owners corporation, it should be allocated accordingly."
4. In Owners Corporation No. 5 PS326559B v Owners Corporation No. 1 PS326559B [2018] VCAT 765 Judge Millane found that Owners Corporation No 5 was responsible for the repair and maintenance of a historic chimney designated as OC5 on the plan of subdivision.
5. I will now examine each of the disputed charges. As will be shown each charge needs to be examined carefully to determine if it should be shared through OC1 so that all lots share equally (subject to their own lot liability) or should be shared through the unlimited owners corporations so that building specific costs are shared only among the affected lot owners.

1. The 31 May 2025 budget for insurance for all the buildings in the subdivision including public liability was $306,000 and carried by OC1. Mr Ward's share of insurance was $1,056. This is calculated as 35/10142 (or .003%) of $306,000. Mr Ward has a lot liability of 35 units out of a total of 10142. The townhouse owners have a lot liability of either 35 or 24 units. Mr Ward's town house is valued at approximately $2.75 million. His town house represents .008% of the total value of buildings insured which was $320 million in 2023. On any measure it cannot be said that Mr Ward is overpaying insurance. The townhouse owners with 24 units of liability are contributing even less to insurance.
2. Notwithstanding these figures, Mr Ward persisted with his proposal that insurance be split 20% to each owners corporation to better reflect the value of the buildings in each owners corporation. This would result in Mr Ward contributing $211 towards building insurance even though his townhouse is valued at $2.75 million. Ms Tran, Mr Ward's expert said that the insurance should be allocated to each owners corporation on a basis that reflects the extent to which each owners corporation benefits from each type of insurance coverage. She could not determine an accurate apportionment.
3. Mr Saunders and Mr Brennan considered that insurance is more fairly shared through OC1 than trying to distribute the cost among the owners corporations. Mr Saunders did not think it was feasible to try to value each owners corporation separately. Although Mr Ward was not necessarily canvassing separate insurance for each owners corporation, it would be highly impractical, risky and expensive to separate the insurance. OC1 is mingled throughout the subdivision and quite possibly this could lead to disputes between insurers over boundaries and what is covered and not covered by each policy. The prudent thing to do is to take out one policy for the whole subdivision.
4. I am not satisfied that Mr Ward nor any of the other applicants are unfairly prejudiced by the insurance being carried by OC1. I totally reject Mr Ward's proposal to allocate the insurance between the unlimited and limited owners corporations.
5. The applicant has not proposed a fair way to distribute the insurance. I find that the allocation of insurance to OC1 is fair to all lot owners in the context of this subdivision. The claim that the owners corporation has acted in breach of section 5 by allocating insurance only to OC1 is dismissed.

1. The 2025 budget for security was $155,000 and allocated to OC1. Mr Ward proposed that security be split 20% to each owners corporation on the basis that a material portion of the monitoring and patrols occurs in OC2, OC3, OC4 and OC5. Ms Tran was of the view that "it would be more appropriate to apportion this expense across all five owners corporations as this is a collective expense that benefits each owners corporation in different proportions. Ms Tran suggested (like Mr Ward) that an apportionment could take place based on time spent by the security guards on each owners corporation. In the absence of a time based apportionment Ms Tran proposed an apportionment as follows OC1 50%, OC2 10%, OC3 12%, OC4 12% and OC5 16%. Mr Ward's proposal is that town house owners would pay 1% of security and under Ms Tran's proposal townhouse owners would pay 2.5% of security.
2. Mr Saunders considered that the appropriate allocation was through OC1 because everyone benefited from security and that even if patrols were being conducted in the common areas of OC2, 3, 4 and 5, that is a benefit to the whole of the subdivision. Low security incidents including vandalism to common property helps keep insurance claims and insurance premiums low. Mr Saunders considered it fair to approach security by the benefit to each lot rather than to each owners corporation. Mr Saunders also felt it was "double dipping" by the owners corporations for lot owners who were members of two or three owners corporations to contribute to security through two or three owners corporations. I do not consider the "double dipping" argument is logical in the context of this subdivision.
3. Mr Saunders pointed out that the townhouse owners contributed 5.02 % of the total cost of security. Town house owners represent 3.7% of the total lots (18/474). Both Mr Saunders and Mr Brennan thought it would be extremely impractical, time consuming and costly to try to establish how much time is spent in each owners corporation by reference to the security logs. I accept that evidence.
4. Cost allocation is not a precise science. Probably the applicants are paying less than their fair share of electricity and insurance but paying a bit more for security. Mr Saunders was doubtful that the electricity meters allocated all the electricity used by OC1. Considering that OC1 common property is spread throughout the subdivision and including in the apartment towers it is possible (but not in contention) that all the electricity used by OC1 is not captured by the new meter allocated to OC1. What the applicants lose on the swings, they gain on the roundabouts. I do not consider the distribution of 5.02 % security to the townhouse owners is so disproportionate to be unfair to warrant the Tribunal to disturb the cost allocation.
5. I consider it is reasonable to apportion the security costs based on each lot rather than each owners corporation. The claim that the owners corporation has acted in breach of section 5 by allocating security to OC1 is not proved. That is not to say that security should always be allocated to OC1. Circumstances change. Technology changes. There might be a new scope of works, a new contract, a series of incidents which requires additional security to a particular owners corporation. The obligation of the owners corporation to monitor and allocate shared costs is ongoing and needs to be reviewed regularly.

1. The subdivision employs two managers to supervise and manage the owners corporation facilities across all five owners corporations. The 2025 budget for the facility management contract was $251,000 which provided two onsite managers 6 days a week at varying times. Whilst it is not disputed that the facility management contract includes management of the OC1 common property, it also includes management of the common property of the unlimited owners corporations. A review of the facility management contract shows that the scope of works includes maintenance, administration, environmental health and safety, reporting, quoting, sourcing competitive prices and scheduling of works and maintaining a move in and move out booking system for the residential towers. The facility management contract does not extend to the townhouse lots, so there are no corresponding services provided to townhouse owners for the common property repairs and maintenance of the apartment towers. In my opinion, the cost of the facility management contract should be shared amongst all owners corporations according to benefit or usage.
2. Mr Ward proposed a 5-way (20% each) split of the facility management contract amongst the 5 owners corporations. Ms Tran recommended tracking the time of the facility manager to determine a percentage of time spent in each owners corporation. In the absence tracking time Ms Tran recommended a split of OC1 51.2%, OC2 5,000, OC3 20.3%, OC4 10.6% and OC5 17.9%.
3. Mr Saunders considered that everyone benefited from the services of the facility manager and that the cost should be allocated per lot through OC1 rather than per owners corporation. Mr Brennan, the also considered that the cost was a collective expense and could not be sensibly or practically allocated between owners corporations.
4. Whilst I acknowledge the simplicity of allocating all the facility management costs to OC1, I consider that the facility management contract must be apportioned between the unlimited and limited owners corporations in the context of this subdivision. All lots are liable for and benefit from the facility management services provided to OC1. However, the lot owners affected by OC2, OC3, OC4 and OC5 derive benefit from the facility management services provided to their buildings in circumstances where the townhouse owners derive no benefit for their townhouses from the facility management services. I acknowledge the difficulty and cost in precisely apportioning the facility management contract, however that is not a sufficiently good reason not to make a reasonable estimate. The proposal put forward by Ms Tran seems reasonable. However, I acknowledge that Ms Tran has made an estimate and has no personal knowledge of the time spent on each owners corporation. The owners corporations together with Whittles and the facility management contractor are best placed to make that estimate.
5. I find that the owners corporation has not acted with due and care diligence by failing to allocate the costs of the facility management contract across all 5 owners corporations. The decision to allocate the entire cost of the facility management contract to OC1 unfairly discriminates against the townhouse owners. I will make a declaration accordingly.
6. To give effect to the declaration I will order that the owners corporations require the facility management contractors to provide a breakdown of the contract price by estimating the approximate time spent in each owners corporation. Subject to acceptance of the breakdown by the Tribunal, it will be necessary for the owners corporation to correct the past misallocation of the facility management contract. I will hear from the parties on the appropriate orders to be made. I would not mandate any proportion going forward. Circumstances change. The terms of the facility management contract and scope of works may change. There is a continuing obligation on the owners corporations to review and allocate costs between owners corporations.

1. The 2025 budget allowed $125,000 for owners corporation management services by Whittles. The total sum was allocated to OC1.
2. Mr Ward contended that the Whittles contract should be split equally between the 5 owners corporation. Ms Tran said that the Whittles contract should be split on the same basis as she proposed for the facility management contract.
3. Mr Saunders considered that the Whittles contract was with OC1 and since the work "melded together" it was not feasible to apportion the cost. Mr Brennan agreed with Mr Saunders.
4. I am satisfied that there will be work carried out by Whittles which is purely for each of the unlimited owners corporations and those costs should be allocated accordingly. I do not accept that the Whittles contract cannot be apportioned. I accept that it cannot be apportioned precisely. I acknowledge that some of the work carried out for the owners corporations is carried out jointly, for example mail outs for meetings and fee notices. Meetings are conducted consecutively. The additional cost to include the unlimited owners corporations in mail outs and consecutive meetings is very small, and sensibly and practically the costs of joint work might appropriately be allocated to OC1. However, there is work carried out purely for the unlimited owners corporations, including preparation of budgets, annual statements, the arranging of repairs, maintenance and services for each of the unlimited owners corporations. Again, Ms Tran's suggested allocation of the Whittles contract does not appear unreasonable, but Ms Tran has no knowledge of the actual time spent on each owners corporation by Whittles. Whittles is in the best position to estimate the allocation of Whittles contract between the owners corporations.
5. I find that the owners corporation has not acted with sufficient diligence by failing to apportion the costs of the Whittles contract across all 5 owners corporations. The decision to allocate the Whittles contract to OC1 unfairly discriminates against the townhouse owners. I will make a declaration accordingly. To give effect to the declaration I will order that the owners corporations require Whittles to provide a breakdown of the contract price with justification, including estimating the approximate time spent on each of the unlimited owners corporations. Subject to acceptance of the breakdown by the Tribunal, it will be necessary for the owners corporation to correct the misallocation of the Whittles contract. I will hear from the parties on the appropriate orders to be made. Again, I would not mandate any proportion going forward. Circumstances change. The terms of the Whittles contract and scope of works may change. There is a continuing obligation on the owners corporations to review and appropriately apportion costs between owners corporations.

1. The evidence was that the whole of the water bill allocated to OC1 related to OC1 common property. There was no evidence that water paid for by OC1 was for the use of any of the unlimited owners corporation or private lots. The claim is not proven and is dismissed.

1. The 2025 budget for fire systems split the charges between the owners corporations as OC1 $20,000, OC2 $1,500, OC3 24,000, OC4 $18,000 and OC5 $25,000. The applicants contend that the charge to OC1 is too high and the charge to OC2 is too low. I was unable to discern from the evidence what scope of works was included in the fire systems and why the applicant contended that the OC1 charge was too high or the OC2 too low. Ms Tran said that "the allocation to OC1 may be disproportionate given that townhouse owners only benefit from fire systems to the extent that they cover OC1 common areas. We understand that townhouse owners do not have fire safety systems and equipment beyond smoke alarms that owners m maintain themselves. An assessment of the actual usage of fire systems could help determine whether the allocation of $20,000 (being 22.6%) of total expenses is appropriate."
2. Mr Brennan could not recall the basis upon which he split the fire system charges, although he said there some evidentiary/factual basis for doing so.
3. At the end of the hearing and having read all the documents I am left with not knowing precisely what is covered by "fire systems" and what "fire systems" exist in each owners corporation. I am not persuaded on the evidence that the owners corporation has acted in breach of the act in allocating expenses for fire systems in the way it has. The claim must be dismissed.

1. Following final submissions, I indicated to the parties my likely findings on the each of the expenses in contention. I raised this because the applicant had not sought the remedies I proposed to grant, namely a declaration impugning the resolutions authorising the wrongful allocation expenses and orders to give effect to the declaration.
2. Instead, the applicants sought damages or restitution for themselves of the expenses incorrectly allocated to OC1. In my opinion that is not a claim the applicants are entitled to make for the following reasons:

(a) The over-charging of electricity calculated by the applicants at $323,526.90 and other expenses should be re-allocated to OC 2,3,4 and 5 and then reimbursed to OC1. OC1 is a proper applicant to that claim.

(b) To give damages or restitution for the applicants' share of "overpayment" of owners corporation fees by OC1 is in effect to give a discount on owners corporation fees which have been properly struck. There is no provision under the Owners Corporation Act 2006 for a lot owner to pay anything less than the fees properly raised under the Act.

(c) The proper course is for a lot owner to impugn the offending resolution. In O'Reilly v Owners Corporation PS318104R (Owners Corporations) [2022] VCAT 590, Member Sweeney, correctly, in my view, found that a similar claim for restitution could not be pursued because the lot owner, having failed to impugn the resolutions of the owners corporation was bound by them and could not seek a refund of properly levied owners corporations fees.

1. Having raised the natural justice issue that the applicant had not sought any of the remedies the Tribunal was prepared to grant, leave was granted, and the applicant amended, the points of claim in accordance with the proposed further amended points of claim dated 29 August 2025.

1. The applicants claimed OC1 had been overcharged $323,526.90 for electricity based on OC1 being properly allocated approximately 3% of the electricity usage.
2. The alleged overcharge of $323,526.90 translates to the townhouse owners being overcharged a total of $23,305.27. (Calculated as $1,623.79; the amount claimed by the townhouse owners with 35 units of lot liability x 7 plus $1085.34 claimed by the townhouse owners with 24 units of lot liability x 11). Rather than require the owners corporations to correct the levies for each relevant year, the practical course would be for the unlimited owners corporations to pay OC1 $23,305.27 in an appropriate proportion. In turn OC1 is to credit the townhouse owners $23,305.27 in accordance with their lot liability. I will hear from the parties on the amount and appropriate orders to be made.