RED BARK PROPERTIES LLC

Landlord profile

on the county rolls as RED BARK PROPERTIES LLC · mail to PO BOX 969 LA VERNIA TX 78121No Texas filing under this name

$1,968,741Market value

5Properties

8,125Sq ft living area

≈5Units 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

4 of them are inside the registry lookup scope

≈5units, estimated

Floor area divided by 900 sq ft, not a count

$1,968,741total market value

County roll value across all 5 parcels

$326,100median parcel value

The middle parcel, which a total hides

County spread: Comal 4, Wilson 1
ZIPs: 78121, 78130
Parcels whose tax bill leaves Texas: 0 of 5
Parcels flagged owner-occupied: 1 of 5
Most recent purchase date on the roll: 20255
Earliest purchase date on the roll: 19373

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

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 · 4 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
000000040660	683 FLORAL CIR NEW BRAUNFELS 78130	comal	$712,861	2,451	1962	19759
000000044287	345 PRINCE DR NEW BRAUNFELS 78130	comal	$391,900	1,520	1974	20255
000000044311	218 PARKVIEW BLVD NEW BRAUNFELS 78130	comal	$326,100	1,357	1975	19373
000000044402	1345 CAMELLIA LN NEW BRAUNFELS 78130	comal	$280,810	1,472	1999	19916
000000042209	207 MC COY ST LA VERNIA 78121	wilson	$257,070	1,325	2001	19942
5 properties			$1,968,741	8,125

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