PROFESSIONAL OPINION
Prepared for: Michael A. Stuart
Broker: Alice Donahue, Texas Real Estate Broker
Date: December 5, 2025
Re: Lease Compliance Review and Assessment of Retroactive Charges
BACKGROUND
I’ve been asked to review the lease compliance and billing situation for the tenant at 1800 Main Street, Apt 1554, Dallas, during the lease term June 1, 2024 through May 31, 2025.
I reviewed:
- The TAA Residential Lease Agreement (2024-2025 term)
- HUD HAP Contract and Tenancy Addendum
- Resident ledgers from Brookfield Properties
- Sworn discovery responses from the landlord (Case DC-25-10952)
MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION ON TENANT COMPLIANCE
Based on standard property management practices, this tenant was in full compliance with his lease obligations throughout the entire lease term.
Here’s why I say that:
- The ledger showed a credit. As of January 1, 2025, the landlord’s own accounting system showed a credit balance of $1,312.00 in the tenant’s favor. The landlord has admitted this in sworn testimony. In property management, tenants are entitled to rely on the ledger the landlord provides them.
- The payment system worked as designed. The tenant was required to use Bilt’s automated payment system. When the system saw the credit balance, it correctly paused automatic withdrawals – because the account showed the rent was already covered. The landlord confirms this in their discovery responses.
- Management confirmed zero balance. The property’s Assistant General Manager reviewed the account, saw the credit, and confirmed the tenant appeared current through the end of the lease. She’s stated this under oath.
From a property management standpoint, when your own system shows a tenant has a credit and you tell them they’re current, you can’t later claim they were delinquent during that period.
MY OPINION ON THE JULY 2025 LEDGER
The ledger produced on July 24, 2025 – two months after this lease ended – is not valid under standard real estate accounting practices.
Here are the problems:
Retroactive Accounting
The July ledger tries to erase a $1,312 credit that had been posted for six months and that the tenant relied on. In professional property management, you cannot retroactively remove credits and create debt after a lease term has closed, especially when the error was the landlord’s misapplication of the Housing Authority payment.
Backdated Late Fees
This ledger charges late fees for December 2024 and January 2025. But during those months, the landlord’s own records showed a credit balance – meaning the tenant wasn’t late. You cannot retroactively assess late fees for months where your own accounting showed the tenant current. This violates basic accounting principles and the lease terms.
Section 8 Violation
The bigger issue: by trying to convert a missing Housing Authority payment into tenant debt, the landlord is attempting to collect more than the tenant’s portion of rent. The HUD Tenancy Addendum specifically prohibits this. The tenant is only responsible for his portion ($333/month). If the Housing Authority didn’t pay or there was a clerical error in posting their payment, that’s a matter between the landlord and the Housing Authority – not the tenant’s responsibility.
BOTTOM LINE
In my professional opinion as a licensed Texas broker with experience in property management:
The tenant fulfilled all his financial obligations under the lease that ended May 31, 2025. The $2,475.45 balance shown on the July 24 ledger is not a legitimate debt. It’s the result of:
- Retroactive accounting adjustments
- Backdated fees that weren’t owed during the actual lease term
- An attempt to make the tenant responsible for amounts covered by the Housing Authority
Under standard property management practices and Section 8 program rules, this revised ledger is not enforceable.
Respectfully submitted,
[SIGNITURE ON FILE]
Alice Donahue, Broker
License # 0432285
Alice Donahue Real Estate
C: 956-572-3403
2216 Padre Blvd # 103
South Padre Island, Tx 78597