XML 31 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.2

Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2020
Loss Contingency [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | 10.Commitments and Contingencies Leases The Company’s leases include a ground lease expiring in 2074 related to one of its apartment communities and an office lease expiring in 2028 related to its corporate headquarters. Both leases contain stated rent increases that generally compensate for the impact of inflation. The Company also has other commitments related to immaterial office and equipment operating leases. The table below reconciles undiscounted cash flows for each of the first five years and total of the remaining years to the operating lease obligations recorded on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2020 (in thousands):
|  | Operating Leases |
2020 |  | $ | 707 |
2021 |  |  | 2,854 |
2022 |  |  | 2,885 |
2023 |  |  | 2,875 |
2024 |  |  | 2,853 |
Thereafter |  |  | 65,863 |
Total minimum lease payments |  |  | 78,037 |
Net present value adjustments |  |  | (45,856 | )
Operating lease obligations |  | $ | 32,181 |
Legal Proceedings In June 2016, plaintiffs Cathi Cleven and Tara Cleven, on behalf of a purported class of plaintiffs, filed a complaint against MAA and the Operating Partnership in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division. In January 2017, Areli Arellano and Joe L. Martinez joined the lawsuit as additional plaintiffs. The lawsuit alleges that the Company (but not Post Properties (see the description of the Brown class action lawsuit below)) charged late fees at its Texas properties that violate Section 92.019 of the Texas Property Code, or Section 92.019, which provides that a landlord may not charge a tenant a late fee for failing to pay rent unless, among other things, the fee is a reasonable estimate of uncertain damages to the landlord that are incapable of precise calculation and result from the late payment of rent. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. In September 2018, the District Court certified a class proposed by the plaintiffs. Additionally, in September 2018, the District Court denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. Because the District Court certified a class prior to granting the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, the District Court’s ruling applies to the entire class. In October 2018, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the Company’s petition to review the District Court’s order granting class certification. In September 2019, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard the Company’s oral arguments. The Company also intends to appeal the District Court’s order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals if permission to appeal is granted. The Company will continue to vigorously defend the action and pursue such appeals. Management estimates that the Company’s maximum exposure in the lawsuit, given the class certification and summary judgment ruling, is $54.6 million, which includes both potential damages and attorneys’ fees but excludes any prejudgment interest that may be awarded. In April 2017, plaintiff Nathaniel Brown, on behalf of a purported class of plaintiffs, filed a complaint against the Operating Partnership, as the successor by merger to Post Properties’ primary operating partnership, and MAA in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division. The lawsuit alleges that Post Properties (and, following the Post Properties merger in December 2016, the Operating Partnership) charged late fees at its Texas properties that violate Section 92.019. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and attorney’s fees and costs. In September 2018, the District Court certified a class proposed by the plaintiff. Additionally, in September 2018, the District Court denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment. Because the District Court certified a class prior to granting the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, the District Court’s ruling applies to the entire class. In October 2018, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the Company’s petition to review the District Court’s order granting class certification. In September 2019, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard the Company’s oral arguments. The Company also intends to appeal the District Court’s order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals if permission to appeal is granted. The Company will continue to vigorously defend the action and pursue such appeals. Management estimates that the Company’s maximum exposure in the lawsuit, given the class certification and summary judgment ruling, is $8.4 million, which includes both potential damages and attorneys’ fees but excludes any prejudgment interest that may be awarded. The Company is subject to various other legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of its business operations. Matters which arise out of allegations of bodily injury, property damage and employment practices are generally covered by insurance. While the resolution of these other matters cannot be predicted with certainty, management does not currently believe that such matters, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in the event of a negative outcome. Loss Contingencies The outcomes of claims, disputes and legal proceedings are subject to significant uncertainty. The Company records an accrual for loss contingencies when a loss is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company also accrues an estimate of defense costs expected to be incurred in connection with legal matters. Management reviews these accruals quarterly and makes revisions based on changes in facts and circumstances. When a loss contingency is not both probable and reasonably estimable, management does not accrue the loss. However, if the loss (or an additional loss in excess of the accrual) is at least a reasonable possibility and material, then management discloses a reasonable estimate of the possible loss, or range of loss, if such reasonable estimate can be made. If the Company cannot make a reasonable estimate of the possible loss, or range of loss, then a statement to that effect is disclosed. The assessment of whether a loss is probable or a reasonable possibility, and whether the loss or range of loss is reasonably estimable, often involves a series of complex judgments about future events. Among the factors considered in this assessment, are the nature of existing legal proceedings and claims, the asserted or possible damages or loss contingency (if reasonably estimable), the progress of the matter, existing law and precedent, the opinions or views of legal counsel and other advisers, management’s experience in similar matters, the facts available to management at the time of assessment, and how the Company intends to respond, or has responded, to the proceeding or claim. Management’s assessment of these factors may change over time as individual proceedings or claims progress. For matters where management is not currently able to reasonably estimate a range of reasonably possible loss, the factors that have contributed to this determination include the following: (i) the damages sought are indeterminate; (ii) the proceedings are in the early stages; (iii) the matters involve novel or unsettled legal theories or a large or uncertain number of actual or potential cases or parties; and/or (iv) discussions with the parties in matters that are ultimately expected to be resolved through negotiation and settlement have not reached the point where management believes a reasonable estimate of loss, or range of loss, can be made. The Company believes that there is considerable uncertainty regarding the timing or ultimate resolution of such matters, including a possible eventual loss or business impact, if any. As of September 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, the Company’s accrual for loss contingencies relating to unresolved legal matters was $7.4 million and $8.6 million in the aggregate, respectively. The loss contingencies are presented in “Accrued expenses and other liabilities” in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LossContingencyAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration