Advantage Property Management

[Al D.]

I am a Tennessee property investor reviewing my past management relationship with Advantage Property Management of Cordova (Memphis) (APM) and trying to determine whether other owners had similar experiences regarding repair billing and related disclosures.

Before I contracted with APM, its website stated: "Receipts given on every repair. No property management 'mark-up' is added to the total of repair." (I'll try to attach a screenshot, circa 2019.)  I also received other communications from APM that were consistent with that statement.  The management agreement itself did not specifically address repair markups.

During the relationship, in its annual cash flow statements to me, APM identified some repair-related charges as "vendor discounts,” and explained them this way: “What is a Vendor Discount? This is a advancement/draw paid to the vendor on projects. It is part of your repair/rehab expenses.”

If you are or were an owner client of APM, in Tennessee or Mississippi, and received similar statements, disclosures, explanations, or billing practices, I would appreciate a private message.

I am only attempting to compare information from current or former owner clients. Please do not post accusations, speculation, or statements about matters outside your own personal experience.

[Drew Sygit]

Quote from @Al D.:

@Drew Sygit 

I am not really sure if we are arguing about something here. I don’t think we are. But you are raising some points that may need addressing, if only for the banter. :)

I will not get into any details in this forum beyond what I posted in the OP.

As far as “markup” or “kickback” being very different by legal definition: I am not aware of whether either of these terms is legally defined in any jurisdiction or in common law. What matters is whether a particular set of actions meets the definition of a violation in a statute. If *any* one element is missing where the statute may use “and,” rather than “or,” then the act is not a violation… at least of that statute.

As I stated previously, TN 62-13-312(b)(17) prohibits a licensee from, “Paying or accepting, giving or charging any undisclosed commission, rebate, compensation or profit or expenditures for a principal or in violation of this chapter.”

I used a specific hypothetical example, after which I stated the applicable elements (using the words from the statute) in my reply to David… I believe the hypothetical I gave is an example of undisclosed(!) markups, while “markups” is not specifically legally defined anywhere I’ve seen.  It is my assumption, not being a lawyer, that - as long as disclosed - markups or kickbacks are not otherwise prohibited by this statute.

What is the argument for which you provided the four examples? That consumers are expected to know when something sounds too good to be true, even in a fiduciary relationship and even if having done additional due diligence that I stated in my hypothetical? Where would you draw the line? What if you went another step and insisted to see the invoices? And once they furnished them, would you contact any number of the vendors to verify the charges? But what of the (suspected) fraud went deeper to further conceal itself? What if the PM gave you invoices for all kinds of jobs performed by their contractor “ABC123 Where We Do It All” self proprietorship, that - unbeknownst to you - they made up and are ready to answer calls for? Where would you draw the line?.. Luckily, the law/system only expects so much of consumers.

If it’s about the regulators’ failure, sure, you have a very strong point. Btw, of the four examples, only madoff had a direct fiduciary relationship with his clients - toward the end of his reign - and specifically because the SEC (a regulator) forced him to. And while the bulk of the recovery came from private actions, the DOJ did play a huge role. Given his professional bona fides before his crash, what was too good to be true about him/his alleged returns?

We do not live in a perfect world: Just because government regulators failed to prevent something - or even in making victims whole after the fact - does not mean that they shouldn’t exist/shouldn’t be complained to. I’d hate a world without them. (I know you are not arguing for that.)

 I enjoy debating, not arguing:)