R4 INVESTMENTS INC

Landlord profile

Filed as R4 INVESTMENTS INC · taxpayer 30005945123 · on the county rolls as R4 INVESTMENTS LP · mail to 519 MAIN ST SCHERTZ TX 78154Matched to a Texas filing

$1,816,076Market value

7Properties

14,212Sq ft living area

≈7Units 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

7parcels on the rolls

7 of them are inside the registry lookup scope

≈7units, estimated

Floor area divided by 900 sq ft, not a count

$1,816,076total market value

County roll value across all 7 parcels

$250,150median parcel value

The middle parcel, which a total hides

County spread: Bexar 5, Guadalupe 2
ZIPs: 78109, 78148, 78154
Parcels whose tax bill leaves Texas: 0 of 7
Parcels flagged owner-occupied: 0 of 7
Most recent purchase date on the roll: 19037
Earliest purchase date on the roll: 17612

Source: 2 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: R4 INVESTMENTS INC
Name we searched: R4 INVESTMENTS LP
Taxpayer number: 30005945123
Right to transact business: FRANCHISE TAX ENDED
Secretary of State status: INACTIVE
Effective registration: 1981-08-19
State of formation: TX
Texas SOS file number: 0057476800
Registered agent: R W RED JR
Filing mailing address: RR 2 BOX 894 ALVIN TX 77511

Source: Texas Comptroller franchise tax registry · matched on the owner name as printed on the roll · 7 registry rows carry this owner

Every property on the rolls under this owner

7 parcels held by this owner, with size, age, acquisition date, and market value
Parcel ID	Address	County	Market value ↓	Sq ft	Built	Acquired
000000295884	111 TURTLE DOVE DR UNIVERSAL CITY 78148	bexar	$323,260	2,414	2003	17953
000000307552	9023 SAHARA WOODS UNIVERSAL CITY 78148	bexar	$286,990	2,487	2004	19037
000000117431	3714 COLUMBIA SCHERTZ 78154	guadalupe	$265,685	1,777	2005	18576
000000724968	8235 CANTURA MLS CONVERSE 78109	bexar	$250,150	2,558	1996	17612
000000128218	5240 BROOKLINE SCHERTZ 78154	guadalupe	$241,661	1,758	2006	18655
000000321881	8174 OCEAN MEADOW DR CONVERSE 78109	bexar	$236,980	1,698	1996	17849
000000321901	8175 OCEAN MEADOW DR CONVERSE 78109	bexar	$211,350	1,520	1995	17953
7 properties			$1,816,076	14,212

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