LLAMA DOG REAL ESTATE LLC

Landlord profile

Filed as LLAMA DOG REAL ESTATE LLC · taxpayer 32084015901 · on the county rolls as LLAMA DOG REAL ESTATE LLC · mail to 61477 CULTUS LAKE CT BEND OREGON OR 97702Matched to a Texas filing

$1,053,548Market value

1Properties

2,818Sq ft living area

≈1Units estimated from floor area

The unit figure is the only estimate in that row: floor area divided by 900 square feet, so it is the third figure restated

Portfolio totals

1parcels on the rolls

1 of them are inside the registry lookup scope

≈1units, estimated

Floor area divided by 900 sq ft, not a count

$1,053,548total market value

County roll value across all 1 parcels

$1,053,548median parcel value

The middle parcel, which a total hides

County spread: Travis 1
ZIPs: 78746
Parcels whose tax bill leaves Texas: 1 of 1
Parcels flagged owner-occupied: 0 of 1
Most recent purchase date on the roll: 2022-05-11
Earliest purchase date on the roll: 2022-05-11

Source: 1 county appraisal rolls · roll year 2025 to 2026 · purchase dates are the roll's own recent-purchase field and are not reliable deed dates

Download this portfolio as CSV

The Texas business filing behind this name

Filing we matched: LLAMA DOG REAL ESTATE LLC
Name we searched: LLAMA DOG REAL ESTATE LLC
Taxpayer number: 32084015901
Right to transact business: ACTIVE
Secretary of State status: ACTIVE
Effective registration: 2022-04-06
State of formation: TX
Texas SOS file number: 0804509459
Registered agent: NW REGIRED AGENT LLC
Filing mailing address: 61477 CULTUS LAKE CT BEND OR 97702

Source: Texas Comptroller franchise tax registry · matched on the owner name as printed on the roll · 1 registry rows carry this owner

Every property on the rolls under this owner

1 parcels held by this owner, with size, age, acquisition date, and market value
Parcel ID	Address	County	Market value ↓	Sq ft	Built	Acquired
113685	6208 INDIAN CANYON DR AUSTIN TX 78746	travis	$1,053,548	2,818	1984	2022-05-11
1 properties			$1,053,548	2,818

Values are the county market value on the roll, not a sale price · roll year 2025 to 2026

The people who signed for the filing

Managing M: LAURA COWAN

Source: Texas Comptroller franchise tax registry · officer home addresses are in the filing and are not shown, and there is no search by person name here

Companies linked to this one

Nothing else in this data shares an officer, a registered agent, or a mailing address with this filing. That is a real answer about this owner, not a blank

One link was withheld. The registered agent on this filing, Nw Regired Agent Llc, appears on 291 other filings here. At that scale it is a hub, not a relationship, so it is reported as a count instead of drawn as lines

Shared officer

The same person is named on both filings. This is the strongest link here, and the one worth naming out loud

Shared mailing address

Both filings collect mail at the same address. Suggestive, and worth a second look, but shared suites happen

Shared registered agent

Both hired the same filing service. Weakest line on the diagram, drawn faint on purpose: these firms sign for thousands of unrelated companies

How to read the end of a chain

A chain can end three ways, and the difference matters. Two of them are answers. One of them is a gap in what we know, and it is drawn as a gap so you never mistake it for an answer

Matched

The name on the roll lines up with a Texas business filing. We show both names side by side so you can reject a bad match yourself

25,455 owners of the 71,735 inside the coverage rules, 35.5% so far

No record

We searched and Texas has no business registration under this name. That is a finding, not a miss: plenty of rentals are held by a person or an out-of-state entity that never registered here. The line stops on a hard bar because the search finished

37,870 owners so far

No answer

No usable answer came back for this name. Almost all of these are lookups the registry rejected outright, which is our query failing, not Texas reporting that nothing is filed. That claim is the middle column, and this is not it. We do not know either way here, so the line trails off dashed and open

8,410 owners in scope: rejected lookup or never queried

One more case borrows that same dashed ending: a parcel outside the coverage rules. The registry was never asked about it, on purpose, so the chain is a gap here too, and the page names the rule that put it outside instead of implying an answer is on its way. 147,384 of the 2,117,593 parcels on the rolls are inside the rules

11.7%

of the 71,735 owners inside the coverage rules have no registry answer. The scrape has finished, so these are not owners waiting in a queue: almost all of them are lookups the registry rejected. Read them as unknown, never as unregistered