Units
266
Garden apartment · 958 SF avg
Code violations
~1,500
Over two years · All COs revoked
Monthly lender burn
$57–80K
Zero revenue offset
Stabilized exit value
$30–31M
BPO scenario 1 · $116K/unit
Subject Property was evacuated by the City of Plano and Collin County District Court after approximately 1,500 code violations accumulated over two years — plumbing and sewer failures, standing water, no hot water, mold, broken HVAC systems, pest infestations, unsecured vacant units, overflowing trash, and over $250,000 in unpaid water bills. All certificates of occupancy were revoked. The asset went fully dark: zero occupancy, zero revenue.
A court-appointed receiver took possession December 1, 2025. Lone Maple was engaged concurrently — before foreclosure concluded — to develop the city remediation plan, scope and competitively bid the capital program, and provide independent advisory and reporting to the receiver and lender. This is the correct time to engage: whoever ultimately holds the asset inherits a credible plan and an established city relationship from day one.
"Only naturally occurring affordable housing asset in the immediate Plano submarket. No competing product at this price point once operational. Market rents at ~$1.63 PSF versus SA distressed comps at $1.00–1.05 PSF — significantly stronger rent basis."
A dark asset is not a paused asset. Every month without certificates of occupancy, the lender is deploying cash with no revenue offset. Across four receivership draws from December 2025 to May 2026, the asset has consumed approximately $897,000 in lender funds — at zero income.
Total drawn to date
~$897K
Dec 2025 – May 2026 · 4 draws
Monthly burn (reduced)
$56K
Security at 1/1 coverage
Monthly burn (peak)
$80K
Security at 2/2 coverage
Revenue offset
$0
Every month · No units habitable
Every month Lone Maple accelerates the CO restoration timeline is $57,000–$80,000 recovered. Lone Maple's monthly retainer is a fraction of a single month's carry cost.
The existing receivership structure embeds construction management inside the property management agreement. The result: a single firm manages the property, manages the construction program, and self-reports performance to the receiver — with no independent check on cost, schedule, or draw accuracy.
| Conflict |
How it works |
Risk to lender |
| PM and CM under one agreement |
The CM agreement is Exhibit 1 inside the PM agreement. Same firm manages, builds, and reports. |
No independent verification of cost, schedule, or draw accuracy. Total self-reporting. |
| Savings clause — incentive to inflate |
PM keeps 20% of any project savings vs. approved budget. They also set the budget. |
Direct financial incentive to inflate the budget. Every $100K of padding is worth $20K to the PM firm. |
| CM fee stacking |
GC bid includes $621,272 in CM fees (10%) + $175K field supervision. PM agreement specifies additional 8% construction supervision fee. |
Combined oversight cost could reach $800K–$950K on a $7.5M program. |
| ACM abatement — no independent verification |
$986,300 asbestos scope procured through PM-aligned vendors. No independent scope validation or unit classification check. |
ACM abatement is among the most frequently inflated scopes in distressed multifamily. Unit count discrepancies at this dollar level are material. |
CM fee (embedded in GC bid)
$621,272
Field supervision (14 months)
$175,000
PM mgmt fee (dark asset, 18 mo)
$119,700
Independent draw verification
None
Savings clause
PM keeps 20%
Total oversight cost
$915,972+
CM fee
Eliminated
Supervision
Competitively bid
Monthly retainer (dark asset)
$15K/mo
Independent draw verification
Every draw
Savings clause
None
Total retainer cost
$270,000
The engagement is active and ongoing. Capital has not yet been deployed — the work to date is the foundation that makes informed capital deployment possible.
City relationship
Est.
Direct engagement with City of Plano on CO reinstatement. No competing applicants.
Security burn reduction
$22K/mo
2/2 to 1/1 coverage secured. Draw 4 reflects reduction.
Capital conflicts flagged
$645K+
Oversight fee savings identified vs. current integrated model.
Work streams completed or active: full physical assessment, city/municipal engagement, studies coordination (sewer, electrical, trip hazards), preliminary capital scoping, NOAH designation and subsidy strategy, PFC/CHDO tax exemption modeling, hold-period underwriting, and ongoing owner/receiver reporting.
Subject Property is the most complex situation Lone Maple has managed. The methodology — independent advisory, competitive bidding, zero conflicts with PM or GC — was proven on two completed REO stabilizations in San Antonio in 2025.
Asset A · Westover Hills, SA
324 units
Class C REO · $5.6M base building + $600K in-unit
Occ. at engagement start
18%
Aug 2025
Occ. at handoff
54%
Physical · 60% preleased
Capital overruns
$0
100% on budget · All 6 phases
Asset B · North SA
276 units
Class C REO · $5.0M base building + $400K in-unit
Occ. at engagement start
16%
Aug 2025
Occ. at handoff
49%
Physical · 53% preleased
Capital overruns
$0
100% on budget · All 5 phases
On both assets: 50% of original tenancy evicted in the first 120 days concurrent with active leasing. Delinquency-clean rent roll established from scratch. $2.0M+ and $3.2M+ in construction draws each verified with full lien waiver documentation under Lone Maple oversight. No overruns on any closed scope.