Complaints

This profile includes complaints for Brun Property Management LLC's headquarters and its corporate-owned locations. To view all corporate locations, see Find Local Branches.

close

Find a Location

Brun Property Management LLC has 2 locations, listed below.

*This company may be headquartered in or have additional locations in another country. Please click on the country abbreviation in the search box below to change to a different country location.

BBB accredited

Near

Country

USUnited States

Please enter a valid location.

Filter

• 

  Brun Property Management LLC

  1013 N. Broadway St. Knoxville, TN 37917

• 

  Brun Property Management LLC

  3615 Wrights Ferry Rd Louisville, TN 37777-4831

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:03/03/2025

  Type:Billing Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I am party to a lease for a rental property managed by Brun Property management. The lease ended July 26, 2024. Tennessee Code Annotated - Title 66 – Property Chapter 28 - Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act affords tenants rights that Brun Property management has violated.
  1. Tenants are to be provided with a list of any damages that the landlord wishes to deduct from the security deposit within 30 days of the tenant vacating. I was not notified of concerns with the property until January 2025.
  2. Landlords are required to provide tenants an opportunity to reinspect after being provided with a list of damages. I was not given this opportunity.
  3. The landlord claims to have “before move-in” photos of the property to contrast with the “after move-out” photos, but will not provide them.
  4. The landlord will not provide a receipt for the cost of the repairs that they claim to have made
  5. The landlord claims to have made repairs that he did not make and I have evidence to support this
  6. The landlord did not do an inspection after the prior lease, when 4 of the 8 tenants moved out and is charging to the current tenants, damages that may have been incurred in the prior lease.
  I have attempted to work with the property management company to find middle ground but their response has been to ignore my efforts.
  
  I have attached a document with photos of damage that they claim was made by the tenants, and repaired by the management company. Some photos clearly show that repairs were not in fact made. And some photos show items that are not tenant responsibility. For example, two small thumbtacks in a wall, a stain from a leaking roof, repainting the house when the interior was not painted before our lease. The last time the interior had been painted was 2 leases ago. Other "damage" they claim are actually due to poor workmanship at installation.

  Business Response

  Date: 03/13/2025

  ***** ******* *** * *******************

  March 14, 2025

  RE: RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT-BRUN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
  FILE NO.

  This law firm represents Brun Property Management (“BPM”). The purpose of this correspondence is to formally respond to a complaint filed with the Better Business Bureau by ****** *****. Ms. ***** served as guarantor for her son’s lease with Brun Property Management for property located at 1316 Forest Avenue in Knoxville, Tennessee (“Premises”). Ms. ***** specifically disputes charges assessed against the residents upon move-out for damages caused to the Premises during their tenancy.

  Ms. ***** specifically alleges that BPM has violated the Tennessee Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (“URLTA”) by (1) not sending an itemized damage list to the residents within 30 days of move out; (2) by failing to allow the residents to “re-inspect” the Premises after receiving the damages list; (3) by failing to provide photographs of the Premises; (4) by failing to provide receipts for the repairs; (5) by failing to complete repairs included in the damage charge list; and (6) by failing to complete an inspection mid-tenancy when some original residents moved out and other residents took their spot under the lease.

  Complainant’s allegations are inaccurate and unsupported by the facts and BPM’s records related to the issue. BPM complied with all requirements of the URLTA, and specifically, Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-28-301, which discusses inspections and security deposits.

  Mr. *****, along with seven other students, rented the property located at **** ****** ****** from BPM beginning in July 2022 until July 2024. While there was turnover in some of the residents during the two-year tenancy period, an interim inspection was not performed nor was it required as the residents that moved out mid-lease term were released from all obligations under the lease. The residents moving in mid-term took over all lease obligations of the residents that vacated. As such, Mr. *****, all other original residents that remained, and the new residents were then, by the terms of the lease and reletting paperwork, jointly and severally responsible for any damage to the premises.

  Prior to move-in, BPM inspected the premises, which was in a satisfactory condition, as is customary before any new tenants move into a new unit. The lease for **** ****** ****** provides that upon commencement of the lease term in July 2022, the residents accepted the property in its “as is” condition, except for any items notated on the move-in, move-out form, which was required be turned in toBPM within 7 days of move-in. The residents turned in the form, notating a few items that were addressed. Notably, the residents are not currently being charged for any items listed on the move-in form. The move-in form is attached hereto for reference.

  The lease also clearly explains the move-in and move-out procedures, including the resident’s right to be present at a mutual walk-through inspection of the premises upon vacating in Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Tenant , if the resident submits a request to schedule a mutual inspection. The Handbook was signed by all residents and guarantors at move-in and is attached for reference. Additionally, in approximately June of 2024, BPM staff visited the premises to conduct a pre move-out inspection. Following this inspection, at least one guarantor reached out to BPM about the existing damages, but did not request to be present at the final walk-through. No other resident or guarantor requested to attend the inspection. In accordance with the URLTA, the final walk-through was conducted by BPM without the residents present. The URLTA does not require that a landlord provide tenants with the right to “re-inspect” the Premises after the inspection is completed.

  The residents vacated on or about July 28, 2024. BPM compiled a comprehensive listing of damages during the move-out inspection and took photographs then promptly completed all repairs to the premises by August 10, 2024. Due to a high volume of move-outs and processing times during the busy turn-over season, the damage listing and photographs of the Premises were posted to the residents and guarantors on the portal when they became available in November. The URLTA does not require that any listing be sent within 30 days, as Complainant claims, nor does it require that photographs or receipts be provided. The list clearly identifies specific damages and the charges associated with correcting each item. As seen in the list, the damage to the Premises was extensive and all items charged for are items that do not result from the normal wear and tear of routine living in the Premises. All residents under the lease remain liable for such damages, and BPM has the right to pursue such damages under the lease and URLTA. The damage list is attached hereto for reference.

  Finally, BPM has responded to all of Complainant’s inquiries regarding this issue, including a formal response letter issued by my office on March 12, 2025. Should you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

  Sincerely,

  ******* ** *******
  Attorney for BPM

  Enclosures
  *******
  c: Manager (via email)

  900 South Gay Street, Suite 2200 - Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 - Phone (865) 525-0880 - Fax (865) 521-7441 - painebickers.com

   

  Customer Answer

  Date: 04/07/2025

  
  
  Complaint: 23004144
  
  
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  Brun Property Management and their attorney continue to assert that they followed the legal process for seizing a tenants security deposit. TN law does not afford landlords the right to seize a deposit and spend that deposit on alleged repairs prior to notifying a tenant of the alleged list of damages. Brun alleges that they used the security deposit to complete repairs in August 2024 that were caused during our tenancy.  The photos were taken in July 2024, but withheld from us until December 2024. The list of alleged damages was not provided to us until November 2024.

  Further, I have photographic evidence that Brun did NOT make all of the repairs that they claimed to have made.  The July 2024 photos provided to us to document alleged damage are indistinguishable from the August 2024 photos that are meant to be "after" repairs were made.  I've asked for repair receipts as evidence and they refuse to provide those.  I've asked for photos that establish the condition of the home before our tenancy, and they are unable or unwilling to provide those.  Brun's response has essentially been -- we say you broke it, and that's all the evidence we need to seize your deposit and bill you for additional work.
  
  In the interest of saving all parties legal fees and the hassle of small claims court, I've attempted to work with Brun Property Management.  Brun and their attorney have responded with minimal concessions with many strings attached.  They require that I remove all negative online reviews and the withdrawal of filed complaints with BBB and other local government consumer protection bureaus.  Additionally, they are requiring all tenants and families to sign a document gagging us from ever saying anything negative about Brun Property management.  
  
  We learned from our attorney and a family friend (retired judge) that "sidestepping the law with malice" is not something that Knoxville courts would look kindly upon and it is what we have been experiencing, though I didn't know that there was a name for this.  Sure enough, Brun and their attorney have violated our rights and the law. After months of trying to work with Brun and their attorney, I have a rejuvenated interest from all parties to protect our rights.
  
  We are moving forward with a claim in small claims court for the full deposit and we will seek punitive damages for Brun's willful disregard for the law and obvious attempt to swindle Knoxville student tenants.  It's my understanding from our sources informally, that the city of Knoxville and particularly Univ of Tennessee have grown weary of this type of landlord behaviour which has run unchecked for far too long.  

  
  
  
  ****** *****

  Business Response

  Date: 04/11/2025

  Brun Property Management has already responded to Complainant's concerns regarding these issues, both on this platform and via email and written correspondence.  While Complainant continues to assert that Brun Property Management has violated Tennessee law, Brun Property Management has complied with all provisions of the relevant Lease and the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, which controls the situation.  Neither Brun Property Management nor counsel has violated Complainant's rights by defending against Complainant's assertions.  Brun Property Management is currently in contact with Complainant about this issue.  To the extent Complainant remains dissatisfied, Brun Property Management is prepared to defend against any additional actions initiated by Complainant relating to the lease at issue.   

• Initial Complaint

  Date:08/08/2024

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  ResolvedMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Rain gutters not attached to building. Causing flooding and mold. Brun was notified months ago. And again a few weeks ago. They have done nothing.