K P MANAGEMENT INC

Landlord profile

Filed as K P MANAGEMENT INC · taxpayer 30010995675 · on the county rolls as K P MANAGEMENT INC · mail to 805 HELEN AVE MISSION TX 78572Matched to a Texas filing

$94,970Market value

1Properties

783Sq 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

$94,970total market value

County roll value across all 1 parcels

$94,970median parcel value

The middle parcel, which a total hides

County spread: Bexar 1
ZIPs: 78229
Parcels whose tax bill leaves Texas: 0 of 1
Parcels flagged owner-occupied: 0 of 1
Most recent purchase date on the roll: 19538
Earliest purchase date on the roll: 19538

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: K P MANAGEMENT INC
Name we searched: K P MANAGEMENT INC
Taxpayer number: 30010995675
Right to transact business: FRANCHISE TAX INVOLUNTARILY ENDED
Secretary of State status: INACTIVE
Effective registration: 1988-05-19
State of formation: TX
Texas SOS file number: 0107771400
Registered agent: KIM PAGE
Filing mailing address: KIM PAGE 812 NORTON MESQUITE TX 75149

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
000000533736	6611 SPT ST SAN ANTONIO 78229	bexar	$94,970	783	1968	19538
1 properties			$94,970	783

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

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

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