Agreed Order involving Kyle Austin Dwyer:

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2EE03FC9-3759-4CC2-9706-B69824E984F1
5/3/2024
Hearing No. ___234113 et.al__________
In the Matter of § Before the Texas Real

Kyle Austin Dwyer § Estate Commission
§ (“Commission”)
§
Texas Real Estate Broker § Sitting In Austin,
License No. 615315 § Travis County, Texas
Agreed Order
Kyle Austin Dwyer (“Respondent”) neither admits nor denies the truth of the following
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and agrees to the entry of this Order.
Findings of Fact Common to all Counts
1. At all times relevant, Respondent was a licensed real estate broker and
performed brokerage activity as defined under Section 1101.002(1), Texas
Occupations Code.
2. Respondent was the designated broker for Two for One, LLC d/b/a Asset
Hero Property Management and d/b/a TNT Properties Real Estate -- broker
license # 9007030 (“Two for One”) -- from on or about April 11, 2018
through April 27, 2023.
3. Respondent was a broker associate with Two For One from on or about
April 27, 2023 through on or about October 11, 2023.
4. On or about October 11, 2023, Respondent requested the Commission

change his license status to “inactive”.
5. Effective November 30, 2023, Respondent’s license expired. Respondent’s

broker license remains expired and inactive.
6. Respondent, through his brokerage company Two for One, acted as a

leasing agent and property manager on behalf of landlords/property
owners for all matters listed in this order.
7. Respondent drafted and signed property management agreements with

the property owner clients during all times relevant to the matters listed
herein. The agreements granted Respondent leasing and management
authority over the property. Each month Respondent was to remit the funds
collected under the agreement to his client, less any reimbursement and
compensation due to Respondent as stated in the management
agreements. The terms also stated that Respondent had to obtain his
clients’ consent for any single repair, maintenance items, redecoration, or
alternation over a certain dollar amount, usually $200 to $300.
8. Respondent advertises to property owners that, “…you get full-service

property management services with no hidden fees for 8% of the rent
collected.”
In The Matter of
Kyle Austin Dwyer
Page 2 of 11
9. Additionally, Respondent prepares leases for new tenants under the

authority of the property management agreements. Respondent charges a
fee to his landlord / property owner clients to act as the leasing agent.
10. The complainants alleged that Respondent has acted negligently and/or in
bad faith through his pattern and practice of excessive billing to both his
clients and the tenants. The complainants alleged that Respondent
charges for items that are not part of the agreements they signed, and by
incurring large expenses that are not authorized under the property
management agreements or the lease agreements.
Findings of Fact Count 1 – 234113
11. On July 18, 2022, Respondent signed a Residential Leasing and Property
Management Agreement (“Management Agreement #1”) on behalf of Two
for One. Respondent prepared Management Agreement #1, which stated
that Two for One would act as Owner 1’s leasing and managing agent for
the property known as 3007 Towers Parkway, College Station, Texas.
12. Owner 1 decided to sign Management Agreement #1 based on

Respondent’s advertisement of the “MMM Protection Guaranty”, which
purportedly stands for “Marketing / Make Ready / Maintenance”.
Respondent’s advertisement claims that property investors can reduce
their most expensive and high risk costs to lease a property by paying a
monthly fee to Respondent for the MMM Protection Guaranty. The monthly
fee would purportedly cover, in relevant part: Respondent’s costs to
advertise and market the property to find new tenants and reduce
vacancies; Respondent’s charges to inspect the property for preventative
maintenance and to repair damage caused by tenant negligence;
protection in the event of tenant default for failure to pay rent; and turnover
costs after a tenant vacates to make the property ready for a new tenant to
move in.
13. Respondent’s written advertisement states that the MMM Protection

Guaranty included the following:
a. Zillow Group Rental Network (valued at $2.50 per unit per day
listed)
b. 4 Periodic Inspections (valued at 75 per inspection)
c. Property Website / Showcase / GMB Page (valued at $100 per
month)
d. Marketing Materials (Professional Photos, 3d Virtual Tour,
Promotional Video, Schematic Floor Plan, Video Walkthroughs)
(valued at $1,000 for all 5 points)
e. $200 Security Deposit Overage Protection
f. All tenant expenses are funded by Asset Hero PM. Financial
Consistency for our Owner.
In The Matter of
Kyle Austin Dwyer
Page 3 of 11
14. Owner 1 agreed to pay Respondent $50 each month for the MMM
Protection Guaranty, which they believed would provide substantial cost
reduction to lease and manage their property.
15. On or about August 12, 2022, a lease was signed for three tenants to
occupy the property starting August 15, 2022 through July 19, 2023.
16. While Respondent managed the property, Owner 1 emailed Respondent

multiple times about charges on his monthly statements that they did not
approve and were not allowed under the terms of Management Agreement
#1. Respondent’s charges significantly reduced the amount Respondent
remitted to Owner 1 every month.
17. On or about October 27, 2022, Owner 1 sent their 30 days written notice to
terminate Management Agreement #1 to Respondent. Owner 1 advised
Respondent that they hired another company to manage the property
starting December 1, 2022. Respondent took the position that
Management Agreement #1 would terminate effective December 18, 2022.
18. In his final statements, Respondent charged Owner 1 the following

amounts which should have been covered by the money Owner 1 already
paid Respondent for the MMM Protection Guaranty:
a. $100 for Advertising

b. $135.00 for Advertising – Zillow Group Rentals Listing
c. $165.00 for Inspections.
19. In addition to Respondent’s 8% property management fee, Respondent

charged Owner 1 for fees that are not listed in Management Agreement #1,
which included “Escrow Shortage Assistance” and multiple charges
purportedly for the Owner not providing proof of insurance. Furthermore,
Respondent charged for maintenance items and “make ready” expenses
that exceeded $300 that were not pre-approved by Owner 1 as required by
Management Agreement #1.
20. Respondent breached his duty to the Owner 1 both during Management
Agreement #1 and after it was terminated through excessive billing and for
charges that were not allowed under the agreement. Respondent kept
funds he collected which should have been remitted to Owner 1 as required
by the agreement.
21. Additionally, Respondent’s advertising of the MMM Protection Plan mislead

Owner #1 to hire him and was a false promise.
Conclusions of Law - Count 1
The acts and omissions on the part of Respondent set out in the Findings of Fact constitute
the following violation(s) that are cause for the revocation of the license subject to this
Order pursuant to the specific violation(s) cited below:
In The Matter of
Kyle Austin Dwyer
Page 4 of 11
22. Section 1101.652(b)(1), Texas Occupations Code, by acting negligently or

incompetently, while acting as a broker or sales agent;
23. Section 1101.652(b)(2), Texas Occupations Code, by engaging in conduct

that is dishonest or in bad faith or that demonstrates untrustworthiness
while acting as a broker or sales agent;
24. Section 1101.652(b)(5), Texas Occupations Code, by making a false

promise that is likely to influence a person to enter into an agreement when
the license holder is unable or does not intend to keep the promise;
25. Section 1101.652(b)(23), Texas Occupations Code, by publishing or

causing to be published an advertisement, including an advertisement by
newspaper, radio, television, the Internet or display, that misleads or is
likely to deceive the public, tends to create a misleading impression, or fails
to identify the person causing the advertisement to be published as a
licensed broker or sales agent;
Findings of Fact Count 2 – Complaint 235250
26. On October 4, 2019, Respondent signed a Residential Leasing and

Property Management Agreement and a Multiple Property Addendum
(collectively, “Management Agreement #2”) on behalf of Two for One with
Owner 2. Respondent prepared Management Agreement #2, which stated
that Two for One would act as Owner 2’s leasing and managing agent for
4 different properties located in College Station, Texas.
27. In March 2022, Owner 2 sold three of his properties that Respondent
managed pursuant to Management Agreement #2. The agreement ended
after the sale of the properties. Respondent charged Owner 2 sales
coordination fees, each in the amount of $500, for each of the properties
sold. These fees were not authorized by Management Agreement #2.

also charged Owner 2 for fees that are not listed in Management
Agreement #2, which included “Escrow Shortage Assistance” and multiple
charges purportedly for not providing proof of insurance. Additionally,
Respondent charged for maintenance items and “make ready” expenses
that were not pre-approved by Owner 2 as required by Management
Agreement #2.
29. Furthermore, Respondent charged Owner 2 for charges that were the
tenants’ responsibility. These charges include late fees owed by tenants,
and tenants’ utility reduction programs. Management Agreement #2 does
not allow Respondent to charge his client for administrative charges owed
by the tenants under lease agreements.
In The Matter of
Kyle Austin Dwyer
Page 5 of 11
by the agreement.


33. On June 17, 2021, Respondent signed a Residential Leasing and Property
Management Agreement (“Management Agreement #3”) on behalf of Two
for One with Owner 3. Respondent prepared Management Agreement #3,
which stated that Two for One would act as the Owner 3’s leasing and
managing agent for the property known as 6918 Appomattox Drive, College
Station, Texas.
34. On or about May 30, 2023, Owner 3 emailed their 30 days written notice to
terminate Management Agreement #3 to Respondent. Owners hired
another company to manage the property and they asked Respondent to
terminate the Management Agreement #3 on June 29, 2023. However,
Patrick Luckenbill, Two For One’s Relations Coordinator, replied to state
Two For One’s position that the agreement would terminate effective July
21, 2023.
35. Respondent’s term as the property manager was scheduled to end before
the new tenants’ lease started on July 31, 2023.
36. Respondent charged owners for Two For One’s “future” property
management fees for the entire term of the new lease even though they
never managed the property during the lease.
37. Respondent also charged the new tenants a fee to remove one of the
tenants from the lease, even though Owner 3 specifically instructed
Respondent not to charge the new tenants and not to make the change
until they reviewed the documents.
In The Matter of
Kyle Austin Dwyer
Page 6 of 11

charged Owner 3 for charges that were the tenants’ responsibility. These
charges include tenants’ utility reduction programs and a security deposit
disposition charge. Management Agreement #3 does not allow
Respondent to charge his client for administrative fees owed by the tenants
under lease agreements.
by the agreement.


42. On March 8, 2022, Respondent signed a Residential Leasing and Property

Management Agreement which later included a Multiple Property
Addendum (collectively, the “Management Agreement #4”) on behalf of
Two for One with Owner 4. Respondent prepared Management Agreement
#4, which stated that Two for One would act as the Owner 4’s leasing and
managing agent for the property known as 2131 Naples Way and 5214
Montague, both in Bryan, Texas.
43. On or about April 5, 2023, Owner 4 sent written notice to terminate

Management Agreement #4 as to the to 5214 Montague to Respondent.
Respondent required that Management Agreement #4 also be terminated
for 2131 Naples Way, and the agreement terminated on or about May 14,
2023.
44. Respondent’s term as the property manager was scheduled to end before
the new tenants’ lease for 2131 Naples Way started on May 14, 2023.
45. Respondent charged owners for Two For One’s future property
management fees for the entire term of the new lease even though they
never managed the property during the lease.
In The Matter of
Kyle Austin Dwyer
Page 7 of 11
46. Respondent also charged the new tenants a pet deposit fee which Owner
4 never received.

also charged Owner 4 for MMM Protection Guaranty even though the MMM
Protection Plan is not in Management Agreement #4 and Owner 4 did not
agree to be charged for the protection plan. Respondent also charged fees
that are not listed in Management Agreement #4, including, but not limited
to, multiple charges purporting to be for “Additional Insured Assistance”.
48. Respondent charged Owner 4 for charges that were the tenants’
responsibility. These charges include tenants’ utility reduction programs
and a security deposit disposition charge. Management Agreement #4
does not allow Respondent to charge his client for administrative fees owed
by the tenants under lease agreements.
49. Additionally, Respondent charged for maintenance items that were not pre-
approved by Owner 4 as required by Management Agreement #4.
by the agreement.
51. On or about February 6, 2024 and February 13, 2024, Respondent was
asked to provide information and documentation in connection with the
complaint under investigation by Commission.
52. Respondent failed to respond to Commission’s request for information and

documentation and refused to cooperate with Commission in the
investigation of the complaint.
53. As of April 17, 2024, Respondent has not provided the information and
documentation requested by Commission and has failed to cooperate in
Commission’s investigation of File No. 242298.
54. Section 1101.652(a-1)(2), Texas Occupations Code, by failing or refusing

to produce on request, for inspection by the Commission or a Commission
representative, a document, book, or record that is in the license holder’s
possession and relates to a real estate transaction conducted by the
license holder;
In The Matter of
Kyle Austin Dwyer
Page 8 of 11
55. Section 1101. 652(a)(4), Texas Occupations Code by failing to provide,

within a reasonable time, information requested by the Commission that
relates to a formal or informal complaint to the Commission that would
indicate a violation of this chapter;


Findings of Fact Count 5 – Complaints 234420 & 234750
58. Respondent acted as the property manager for the property known as 4106
Gunner Trail, College Station, Texas at all times relevant to this complaint.
59. Three tenants signed a lease agreement along with several amendments
and/or extensions, and they occupied the property from on or about August
3, 2020 through July 28, 2022.
60. The terms of the lease required the tenants to pay a security deposit in the
amount of $1,425 to Respondent to hold on behalf of the landlord.
61. On or about August 5, 2020, the tenants completed a “Residential Lease

Inventory and Condition Form”, which detailed the condition of the property
when they moved in. Tenants included the dirty condition of the property,
scuff marks and nail holes in the wall. The form also states that tenants
received 3 door keys, one for each tenant for the exterior door.
62. The tenants timely vacated the property and returned keys to Two for One
at the end of the lease term. The tenants cleaned the property, including
professionally cleaning the carpets, in compliance with Respondent’s move
out procedures.
63. Respondent sent the tenants a statement dated August 26, 2022. The
statement showed that Respondent charged tenant the sum of $1,448.30,
and, after deducting the tenants’ security deposit, which left a balance
owed by tenants in the amount of $23.30.
64. Respondent charged the tenants for items that were either previously
damaged or missing when they moved in, including, but not limited to,
cleaning the property, and prepping and painting walls and ceiling.
Additionally, Respondent charged tenants to replace 2 keyed door handles
on the bedroom doors with keyless door handles. The keyed door handles
were there when the tenants moved in and Respondent never provided
them with the keys.
In The Matter of
Kyle Austin Dwyer
Page 9 of 11
65. Respondent’s unauthorized charges and excessive billing are part of his
pattern and practice of acting dishonestly and in bad faith when managing
the property.
66. Respondent breached his duty to his client by not properly documenting
his charges to the tenant. Furthermore, Respondent breached his duty to
treat the tenants fairly.


69. Respondent acted as the property manager for the property known as 9803
Risky’s Ranch Drive, College Station, Texas at all times relevant to this
complaint.
70. Two tenants signed a lease agreement along with several amendments
and/or extensions, and they occupied the property beginning on or about
March 4, 2020.
71. On or about August 2, 2023, tenants signed a lease amendment which

stated that the lease expiration date would be August 13, 2023, however
they needed to vacate the property August 6, 2023.
72. Two for One requested that tenants vacate before the lease expiration date
so that they could have the property ready for new tenants to move in by
August 13, 2023. Tenants believed that Two For One would clean the
property for them for a charge of $500, which would be deducted from their
security deposit. Two for One led the tenants to believe that would be their
only charge.
73. On or about September 8, 2023, Two For One sent the tenants a statement
which charged the tenants over $10,000 in “make ready” expenses. After
deducting the tenants’ security deposit in the amount of $2,250, tenants
owed a balance in the amount of $8,241.75.
74. Tenants disputed all of the charges.

In The Matter of
Kyle Austin Dwyer
Page 10 of 11
75. Respondent’s unauthorized charges and excessive billing are part of his
pattern and practice of acting dishonestly and in bad faith when managing
the property.
76. Respondent breached his duty to his client by not properly documenting
his charges to the tenant. Furthermore, Respondent breached his duty to
treat the tenants fairly.
77. On or about November 13, 2023, Respondent was asked to provide

information and documentation in connection with the complaint under
investigation by Commission.
78. Respondent failed to respond to Commission’s request for information and

documentation and refused to cooperate with Commission in the
investigation of the complaint.
79. As of April 17, 2024, Respondent has not provided the information and
documentation requested by Commission and has failed to cooperate in
Commission’s investigation of File No. 240470.
80. Section 1101.652(a-1)(2), Texas Occupations Code, by failing or refusing

to produce on request, for inspection by the Commission or a Commission
representative, a document, book, or record that is in the license holder’s
possession and relates to a real estate transaction conducted by the
license holder;
81. Section 1101. 652(a)(4), Texas Occupations Code by failing to provide,

within a reasonable time, information requested by the Commission that
relates to a formal or informal complaint to the Commission that would
indicate a violation of this chapter;


84. Section 1101.652(b)(6), Texas Occupations Code, by pursuing a continued

and flagrant course of misrepresentation or makes false promises through
an agent or sales agent, through advertising, or otherwise;
In The Matter of
Kyle Austin Dwyer
Page 11 of 11
85. Section 1101.652(b)(13), Texas Occupations Code, by accepting,

receiving, or changing an undisclosed commission, rebate, or direct profit
on an expenditure made from a principal;
86. Section 1101.652(b)(24), Texas Occupations Code, by withholding from or

inserting into a statement of account or invoice a statement that the license
holder knows makes the statement of account or invoice inaccurate in a
material way.
Order
IT IS ORDERED that the license number 615315 is revoked, effective May 15, 2024.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall not file an application to obtain any
license or certificate issued by the Commission before May 15, 2030. The underlying facts
in this Agreed Order, as well as any other factors regarding fitness, maybe considered
and may lead to a denial of a future application.
5/3/2024
_______________________________________________
Chelsea Buchholtz Date
Executive Director, Texas Real Estate Commission
or
Tony Slagle
Deputy Executive Director, Texas Real Estate Commission
Respondent affirms he is freely joining into this Agreed Order with the above Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law. Respondent has been afforded all administrative remedies
under the law. Respondent has been advised of his rights to a hearing and waives this
right. Respondent has been represented in this matter by an attorney and waives all right
to a judicial review of this Order.
5/3/2024
DATED: _____________________ _____________________________
Kyle Austin Dwyer
Respondent
5/2/2024
DATED:_____________________ _____________________________
Travis G. Normand
Attorney for Respondent
5/3/2024
DATED:_____________________ _____________________________
John J. Knopic
Staff Attorney

Agreed Order involving Kyle Austin Dwyer:

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agreed Order involving Kyle Austin Dwyer:

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2EE03FC9-3759-4CC2-9706-B69824E984F1

Hearing No. ___234113 et.al__________

In the Matter of § Before the Texas Real

Findings of Fact Common to all Counts

4. On or about October 11, 2023, Respondent requested the Commission

5. Effective November 30, 2023, Respondent’s license expired. Respondent’s

6. Respondent, through his brokerage company Two for One, acted as a

7. Respondent drafted and signed property management agreements with

8. Respondent advertises to property owners that, “…you get full-service

9. Additionally, Respondent prepares leases for new tenants under the

Findings of Fact Count 1 – 234113

12. Owner 1 decided to sign Management Agreement #1 based on

13. Respondent’s written advertisement states that the MMM Protection

16. While Respondent managed the property, Owner 1 emailed Respondent

18. In his final statements, Respondent charged Owner 1 the following

a. $100 for Advertising

19. In addition to Respondent’s 8% property management fee, Respondent

21. Additionally, Respondent’s advertising of the MMM Protection Plan mislead

Conclusions of Law - Count 1

22. Section 1101.652(b)(1), Texas Occupations Code, by acting negligently or

23. Section 1101.652(b)(2), Texas Occupations Code, by engaging in conduct

24. Section 1101.652(b)(5), Texas Occupations Code, by making a false

25. Section 1101.652(b)(23), Texas Occupations Code, by publishing or

Findings of Fact Count 2 – Complaint 235250

26. On October 4, 2019, Respondent signed a Residential Leasing and

28. In addition to Respondent’s 8% property management fee, Respondent

Conclusions of Law - Count 2

31. Section 1101.652(b)(1), Texas Occupations Code, by acting negligently or

32. Section 1101.652(b)(2), Texas Occupations Code, by engaging in conduct

Findings of Fact Count 3 – Complaint 236091

38. In addition to Respondent’s 8% property management fee, Respondent

Conclusions of Law - Count 3

40. Section 1101.652(b)(1), Texas Occupations Code, by acting negligently or

41. Section 1101.652(b)(2), Texas Occupations Code, by engaging in conduct

Findings of Fact Count 4 – Complaint 242298

42. On March 8, 2022, Respondent signed a Residential Leasing and Property

43. On or about April 5, 2023, Owner 4 sent written notice to terminate

47. In addition to Respondent’s 8% property management fee, Respondent

52. Respondent failed to respond to Commission’s request for information and

Conclusions of Law - Count 4

54. Section 1101.652(a-1)(2), Texas Occupations Code, by failing or refusing

55. Section 1101. 652(a)(4), Texas Occupations Code by failing to provide,

56. Section 1101.652(b)(1), Texas Occupations Code, by acting negligently or

57. Section 1101.652(b)(2), Texas Occupations Code, by engaging in conduct

Findings of Fact Count 5 – Complaints 234420 & 234750

61. On or about August 5, 2020, the tenants completed a “Residential Lease

Conclusions of Law - Count 5

67. Section 1101.652(b)(1), Texas Occupations Code, by acting negligently or

68. Section 1101.652(b)(2), Texas Occupations Code, by engaging in conduct

Findings of Fact Count 6 – Complaint 240470

71. On or about August 2, 2023, tenants signed a lease amendment which

74. Tenants disputed all of the charges.

77. On or about November 13, 2023, Respondent was asked to provide

78. Respondent failed to respond to Commission’s request for information and

Conclusions of Law - Count 6

80. Section 1101.652(a-1)(2), Texas Occupations Code, by failing or refusing

81. Section 1101. 652(a)(4), Texas Occupations Code by failing to provide,

82. Section 1101.652(b)(1), Texas Occupations Code, by acting negligently or

83. Section 1101.652(b)(2), Texas Occupations Code, by engaging in conduct

84. Section 1101.652(b)(6), Texas Occupations Code, by pursuing a continued

85. Section 1101.652(b)(13), Texas Occupations Code, by accepting,

86. Section 1101.652(b)(24), Texas Occupations Code, by withholding from or

You might also like

Hearing No. _234113 et.al________