We review a summary judgment. We find that there was no genuine issue of material fact involving the question of whether the porch was a common area. Based on all of the undisputed evidence it was not a common porch even when reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff. Bakewell v. Missouri State Employees’ Retirement System, 668 S.W.2d 224, 226 (Mo.App.1984). Both tenants stated that the only way to reach the porch in question was through their apartment and that a wall divided their porch from their neighbor’s porch. Plaintiff argues that a photograph marked and referred to as an exhibit in the tenants’ depositions depicted only a “make shift” wall. She argues that this presents a fatal im*807pairment to finding the porch was a non-common area. The wall appears to be in bad repair, but it is a wall and does not maintain a disputed issue of fact where the tenants testified the porch was divided and their porch was available only through apartment. In Flournoy v. Kuhn, 378 S.W.2d 264 (Mo.App.1984), the court held that a porch was not a common area where a railing divided the upstairs porches. The wall shown in the photograph is more substantial than a railing. See also, Gray v. Pearline, 328 Mo. 1192, 43 S.W.2d 802 (1931).