COMAL COUNTY EMS DIST 3

Landlord profile

on the county rolls as COMAL COUNTY EMS DIST 3 · mail to 1074 SCISSORTAIL CANYON LAKE TX 78133No Texas filing under this name

$3,313,030Market value

5Properties

2,772Sq ft living area

≈2Units 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

5parcels on the rolls

2 of them are inside the registry lookup scope

≈2units, estimated

Floor area divided by 900 sq ft, not a count

$3,313,030total market value

County roll value across all 5 parcels

$201,490median parcel value

The middle parcel, which a total hides

County spread: Comal 5
ZIPs: 78132, 78133
Parcels whose tax bill leaves Texas: 0 of 5
Parcels flagged owner-occupied: 0 of 5
Most recent purchase date on the roll: 18871
Earliest purchase date on the roll: 12930

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

Texas has no business filing under this name

The registry answered, and the answer was that nothing is filed in Texas under this name. That is a finding. Plenty of rentals are held by a person under their own name, by a trust, or by an out-of-state company that never registered here

This owner is in the no record state. The three states are different claims, and the method page gives the current count for each

Source: Texas Comptroller franchise tax registry · 2 registry rows carry this owner

Every property on the rolls under this owner

5 parcels held by this owner, with size, age, acquisition date, and market value
Parcel ID	Address	County	Market value ↓	Sq ft	Built	Acquired
000000118575	1223 ISLAND VIEW DR CANYON LAKE 78133	comal	$1,839,520	0	not on the roll	12930
000000153610	NEW BRAUNFELS 78132	comal	$1,026,580	2,772	0	13969
000000079876	160 OBLATE DR CANYON LAKE 78133	comal	$201,490	0	not on the roll	14151
000000361089	OBLATE RANCH DR CANYON LAKE 78133	comal	$143,970	0	not on the roll	14151
000000023359	546 DOVE ST CANYON LAKE 78133	comal	$101,470	0	not on the roll	18871
5 properties			$3,313,030	2,772

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

Companies linked to this one

There is no network to draw yet. Linking one company to another needs a franchise filing on both ends, and this owner has no matched filing. The links this tool will draw are a shared officer, a shared registered agent, and a shared mailing address, in that order of strength

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