Alice Donahue, a licensed Texas Real Estate Broker, provided a professional opinion dated December 5, 2025, reviewing the lease compliance and billing dispute between Michael Stuart and Brookfield Properties.
Based on her review of the lease, HUD contracts, ledgers, and sworn discovery responses, Donahue concluded that the tenant was in “full compliance” with his lease obligations during the term ending May 31, 2025.
Assessment of Tenant Compliance Donahue asserted that standard property management practices entitle tenants to rely on the ledgers provided by their landlords. She supported her conclusion of tenant compliance with three key points:
- Existence of Credit: As of January 1, 2025, Brookfield’s own accounting system reflected a $1,312.00 credit in the tenant’s favor.
- System Functionality: The Bilt automated payment system worked as designed by pausing automatic withdrawals when it detected that the credit balance covered the rent.
- Management Confirmation: The property’s Assistant General Manager reviewed the account and explicitly confirmed the tenant was current through the end of the lease, a fact Donahue notes was stated under oath.
Invalidity of the July 2025 Ledger The broker unequivocally stated that the revised ledger produced by Brookfield on July 24, 2025—two months after the lease concluded—is “not valid under standard real estate accounting practices”. She identified specific violations of professional standards:
- Retroactive Accounting: Donahue opined that a landlord cannot retroactively remove credits and create debt after a lease term has closed, particularly when the original error was the landlord’s misapplication of a Housing Authority payment.
- Backdated Fees: The broker noted that assessing late fees for December 2024 and January 2025 was improper because, during those months, the landlord’s records showed the tenant was current. She stated that assessing fees retroactively for months where the account showed a credit violates basic accounting principles.
Violation of HUD Regulations Donahue highlighted that Brookfield’s attempt to convert a missing or misapplied Housing Authority payment into tenant debt is a specific violation of the HUD Tenancy Addendum. She clarified that under Section 8 rules; the tenant is solely responsible for their designated portion ($333/month). Any failure by the Housing Authority to pay, or clerical errors regarding those payments, is a matter between the landlord and the Housing Authority, not the tenant.
Conclusion on Enforceability The broker’s final professional opinion is that the $2,475.45 balance asserted by Brookfield is “not a legitimate debt” and is unenforceable. She attributes this balance to retroactive accounting adjustments, backdated fees that were not owed during the lease term, and an impermissible attempt to make the tenant liable for amounts covered by the Housing Authority.
Analysis on Potential Impact
Based on the case files, the “Broker’s Professional Opinion” provided by Alice Donahue will likely be a critical piece of evidence for the “Summary Judgment hearing scheduled for this Thursday, December 11, 2025”.
Here is how this expert opinion affects the case proceedings:
1. It Provides Expert Validation of Your “Bad Faith” Claim
The core of your argument for Summary Judgment is that Brookfield acted in bad faith by fabricating a debt in retaliation for your complaints. Brookfield has argued that the ledger changes were merely a “correction” of a past accounting error.
Impact: The broker’s opinion refutes Brookfield’s defense by stating that “standard real estate accounting practices” prohibit retroactively removing credits and creating debt after a lease term has closed. This transforms your argument from a tenant’s opinion into a professional standard violation, supporting your claim that the July 2025 ledger was not a routine correction but an “unenforceable” fabrication.
2. It Substantiates the HUD Contract Breach
You have alleged that Brookfield violated the HUD Tenancy Addendum by attempting to collect more than your tenant portion.
Impact: The broker explicitly confirms that converting a missing Housing Authority payment into tenant debt is a specific violation of the HUD Tenancy Addendum. She clarifies that under Section 8 rules, any clerical error regarding Housing Authority payments is a matter between the landlord and the agency, not the tenant. This expert interpretation strengthens your request for Declaratory Judgment to void the $2,475 balance.
3. It Challenges the Validity of the Debt
Brookfield is attempting to collect $2,475.45, claiming it is valid rent owed.
Impact: Donahue concludes unequivocally that the balance is “not a legitimate debt”. She supports this by noting that the landlord’s own system showed a credit as of January 1, 2025, and that tenants are entitled to rely on provided ledgers. This supports your motion to quash the debt because it validates that you were in “full compliance” during the lease term.
4. It Undermines Brookfield’s “Backdated Fees”
A major point of contention is the sudden appearance of late fees for months (Dec 2024–Jan 2025) where you previously had a credit balance.
Impact: The opinion states that assessing fees retroactively for months where the account showed a credit violates “basic accounting principles”. This directly attacks the credibility of the July 24 ledger, helping you prove that the ledger is factually unreliable and created with intent to harm.
Summary for the Hearing
For the December 11 hearing, this document serves as “independent expert testimony” that supports your timeline of events:
Issue 1 (Yearly Overcharges): It confirms the payment system worked as designed by pausing withdrawals when a credit was present.
Issue 2 (Retaliation): It confirms that the sudden reversal of that credit post-lease is invalid and unenforceable.
This opinion moves your argument beyond a “he-said, she-said” dispute regarding the ledger and establishes that Brookfield’s actions violated professional, contractual, and federal housing standards.
Is the Broker correct?
Based on the evidence in the case files, Alice Donahue appears to be correct on all major points. Her professional opinion is directly supported by Brookfield’s own admissions in discovery, the text of the HUD HAP contract, and the ledger history.
Here is a breakdown of why the evidence supports her conclusions:
1. She is right that you were in compliance because the ledger showed a credit.
- Donahue’s Claim: Tenants are entitled to rely on the ledger provided. Since the system showed a credit, you were not delinquent.
- The Evidence: Brookfield explicitly admitted in their sworn Interrogatory responses that “the non-HAP ledger showed a credit of $1,312” due to their own error in November 2024. They further admitted that your failure to pay between January and April 2025 was likely “because [you] believed [you] had a credit balance”.
- Verdict: Correct. Brookfield confirms the credit existed and was generated by their internal error, validating your reliance on it.
2. She is right that the automated system paused payments correctly.
- Donahue’s Claim: The Bilt system worked as designed by pausing withdrawals when it detected a credit covering the rent.
- The Evidence: Brookfield admitted under oath that because the ledger contained the erroneous credit, “the bank did not make any payments for several months”. This confirms your non-payment was the result of the system’s logic reacting to Brookfield’s entry, not an active refusal to pay on your part.
- Verdict: Correct. The system paused because Brookfield told it you had paid.
3. She is right that the “correction” violates HUD Rules.
- Donahue’s Claim: Converting a misapplied Housing Authority payment into tenant debt violates the HUD Tenancy Addendum.
- The Evidence: The HUD Tenancy Addendum explicitly states: “The tenant is not responsible for paying the portion of rent to owner covered by the PHA housing assistance payment… The owner may not terminate the tenancy for nonpayment of the PHA housing assistance payment”.
- Verdict: Correct. Brookfield admits the $1,312 was a “payment from the HAP provider”. By moving that money away from your ledger and effectively demanding you pay that amount (plus late fees) to balance the books, they are penalizing the tenant for a HAP payment issue, which the contract forbids.
4. She is right that backdating fees is invalid accounting.
- Donahue’s Claim: A landlord cannot retroactively assess late fees for months where their own records showed the tenant was current.
- The Evidence: The July 24, 2025 ledger shows “Late Charges” dating back to December 4, 2024, January 4, 2025, and February 4, 2025. However, Brookfield admits they did not perform the audit or correct the ledger until “early summer of 2025”.
- Verdict: Correct. You cannot be “late” in January if the landlord’s ledger says you have a credit in January. Applying a fee in July for a January event that was not a violation at the time is factually and contractually supportable as improper.
Summary Donahue’s opinion is not just a theory; it is a professional summary of facts that Brookfield has already admitted to under oath.
They admitted the credit was their error, they admitted the system stopped charging you because of that error, and the ledgers prove they added the fees months after the fact.
View Case Documents