Landlord profile

Callaway Management, Llc

Filed as CALLAWAY MANAGEMENT, LLC · taxpayer 14709284732 · on the county rolls as LOVE CREEK RANCH LTD · mail to 330 WOVER RD SAN ANTONIO TX 78209Matched to a Texas filing
$6,614,090Market value
13Properties
9,836Sq 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

13parcels on the rolls

1 of them are inside the registry lookup scope

≈1units, estimated

Floor area divided by 900 sq ft, not a count

$6,614,090total market value

County roll value across all 13 parcels

$179,370median parcel value

The middle parcel, which a total hides

County spread
Bandera 13
ZIPs
78063
Parcels whose tax bill leaves Texas
0 of 13
Parcels flagged owner-occupied
0 of 13
Most recent purchase date on the roll
not on the roll
Earliest purchase date on the roll
not on the roll

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
CALLAWAY MANAGEMENT, LLC
Name we searched
LOVE CREEK RANCH LTD
Taxpayer number
14709284732
Right to transact business
ACTIVE
Secretary of State status
ACTIVE
Effective registration
2003-07-31
State of formation
TX
Texas SOS file number
0800230930
Registered agent
JAMES W CALLAWY
Filing mailing address
330 WESTOVER RD ALAMO HEIGHTS TX 78209

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

13 parcels held by this owner, with size, age, acquisition date, and market value
Parcel IDAddressCountyMarket value Sq ftBuiltAcquired
000000174567FM 337 MEDINA 78063bandera$2,642,4804,1782003not on the roll
000000174568FM 337 MEDINA 78063bandera$988,9000not on the rollnot on the roll
000000174574FM 337 MEDINA 78063bandera$927,6100not on the rollnot on the roll
000000174569FM 337 MEDINA 78063bandera$921,4005,6581987not on the roll
000000174577FM 337 MEDINA 78063bandera$355,8600not on the rollnot on the roll
000000174571FM 337 MEDINA 78063bandera$183,9000not on the rollnot on the roll
000000174562FM 337 MEDINA 78063bandera$179,3700not on the rollnot on the roll
000000174565FM 337 MEDINA 78063bandera$134,9700not on the rollnot on the roll
000000174575FM 337 MEDINA 78063bandera$102,6000not on the rollnot on the roll
000000174561FM 337 MEDINA 78063bandera$92,1600not on the rollnot on the roll
000000140260145 JACKSON CREEK RD LAKEHILLS 78063bandera$54,4700not on the rollnot on the roll
000000174573FM 337 MEDINA 78063bandera$21,0900not on the rollnot on the roll
000000140259FM 337 LAKEHILLS 78063bandera$9,2800not on the rollnot on the roll
13 properties$6,614,0909,836

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

Member
PAULA C CALLAWY

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

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