Understanding the Important Legal Distinction Between a Residential "Landlord" and a "Property Manager" in Texas

San Antonio Texas Real Estate Attorney Trey Wilson wrote:

Tenants (or former tenants) disgruntled with a lease, rental property condition and/or security deposit accounting / refund are increasingly asserting claims and filing lawsuits against managers of residential real property, in addition to owners/landlords.  On an almost weekly basis a property manager contacts our office after receiving a notice letter or lawsuit filed on behalf of a disgruntled tenant or former tenant.  These claims seem to assume (and sometimes expressly argue) that the landlord and his property manager are interchangeable and subject to the same obligations under a lease.  However, Texas law very clearly states differently.

Chapter 92 of the Texas Property Code expressly applies to and governs "the relationship between landlords and tenants of residential real property." See Tex.Prop. Code § 92.002. Notably, there is no reference to a "property manager" in Section 92.002, which is entitled "Application."

However, the concept of a "property manager" was not overlooked by the Texas Legislature, but rather, recognized and expressly excluded from the legal definition of the term "Landlord," as provided in Tex.Prop. Code § 92.001(2). That statute, entitled "Definitions," provides as follows:

"Landlord" means the owner, lessor, or sublessor of a dwelling, but does not include a manager or agent of the landlord unless the manager or agent purports to be the owner, lessor, or sublessor in an oral or written lease. 

From this definition -- read through the lens of well-settled law concerning statutory construction -- it is apparent that the Legislature specifically intended that managers NOT be considered landlords unless:  (i) there exists an oral or written lease; and (ii) within that lease, the manager "purports to be the owner, lessor or sublessor."  Conversely, where the manager does not purport to be the owner, lessor or sublessor under a lease (or where no lease exists), that manager is NOT a "landlord" for the purposes of Chapter 92.  

The legal significance of a property manager NOT being considered a landlord for purposes of Chapter 92 cannot be overstated.  

Chapter 92 imparts broad duties upon landlords, and provides for sweeping remedies when landlords breach those duties.  If a manager is not acting as a landlord, those duties and remedies (and, under the unambiguous language of Section 92.002, Chapter 92 in its entirety) should not be applicable to a property manager.  

Notwithstanding this clear language, tenants and their lawyers  persist in asserting claims against property managers for alleged violations of Chapter 92 and for "breach of lease." These claims are misplaced, and should be confronted (and ultimately defeated) by the statutory exclusion of property mangers from the definition of "landlord" under Section 92.001(2).