Equity LifeStyle Properties - 10-Q quarterly report FY2012 Q3

_________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________ 

EQUITY LIFESTYLE PROPERTIES, INC.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

_________________________________________________________ 

(Registrant’s Telephone Number, Including Area Code)

_________________________________________________________ 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date:

Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.

____________________________

     

Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc., a Maryland corporation, together with MHC Operating Limited Partnership (the “Operating Partnership”) and other consolidated subsidiaries (“Subsidiaries”) are referred to herein as the “Company” and “ELS.” Capitalized terms used but not defined herein are as defined in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K (“2011 Form 10-K”) for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Presentation

These unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements have been prepared pursuant to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) rules and regulations and should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and notes thereto included in the 2011 Form 10-K. The following Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements highlight significant changes to the Notes included in the 2011 Form 10-K and present interim disclosures as required by the SEC. The accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements reflect, in the opinion of management, all adjustments necessary for a fair presentation of the interim financial statements. All such adjustments are of a normal and recurring nature. Revenues are subject to seasonal fluctuations and as such quarterly interim results may not be indicative of full year results.

The Company follows accounting standards set by the Financial Accounting Standards Board, commonly referred to as the “FASB.” The FASB sets generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) that the Company follows to ensure that the Company consistently reports its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. References to GAAP issued by the FASB in these footnotes are to the FASB Accounting Standards Codification (the “Codification”).

The Company consolidates its majority-owned subsidiaries in which it has the ability to control the operations of the subsidiaries and all variable interest entities with respect to which the Company is the primary beneficiary. The Company also consolidates entities in which it has a controlling direct or indirect voting interest. All inter-company transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. For business combinations the purchase price of Properties is accounted for in accordance with the Codification Topic “Business Combinations” (“FASB ASC 805”).

The Company has applied the Codification Sub-Topic “Variable Interest Entities” (“FASB ASC 810-10-15”). The objective of FASB ASC 810-10-15 is to provide guidance on how to identify a variable interest entity (“VIE”) and determine when the assets, liabilities, non-controlling interests, and results of operations of a VIE need to be included in a company’s consolidated financial statements. The Company has also applied the Codification Sub-Topic “Control of Partnerships and Similar Entities” (“FASB ASC 810-20”), which determines whether a general partner or the general partners as a group controls a limited partnership or similar entity and therefore should consolidate the entity. The Codification Sub-Topic ASC 810-10-15 adopted amendments to the variable interest consolidation model described above. The requirement to consolidate a VIE as revised in this amendment is based on the qualitative analysis considerations for primary beneficiary determination which requires a company consolidate an entity determined to be a VIE if it has both of the following characteristics: (1) the power to direct the principal activities of the entity and (2) the obligation to absorb the expected losses or the right to receive the residual returns that could be significant to the entity. The Company applies FASB ASC 810-10-15 and FASB ASC 810-20 to all types of entity ownership (general and limited partnerships and corporate interests).

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. All property, site counts and acreage amounts are unaudited.

In making estimates of fair values for purposes of allocating purchase price, the Company utilizes a number of sources, including independent appraisals or valuations that may be available in connection with the acquisition or financing of the respective Property and other market data. The Company also considers information obtained about each Property as a result of its due diligence, marketing and leasing activities in estimating the fair value of the tangible and intangible assets acquired and liabilities assumed.

Expenditures for ordinary maintenance and repairs are expensed to operations as incurred and significant renovations and improvements that improve the asset and extend the useful life of the asset are capitalized over their estimated useful life.

The values of above-and below-market leases are amortized and recorded as either an increase (in the case of below-market leases) or a decrease (in the case of above-market leases) to rental income over the remaining term of the applicable lease. The value associated with in-place leases is amortized over the expected term, which includes an estimated probability of lease renewal.

In accordance with the Codification Sub-Topic “Impairment or Disposal of Long Lived Assets” (“FASB ASC 360-10-35”), the Company periodically evaluates its long-lived assets to be held and used, including its investments in real estate, for impairment indicators. The Company’s judgments regarding the existence of impairment indicators are based on factors such as operational performance, market conditions and legal factors. Future events could occur which would cause the Company to conclude that impairment indicators exist and an impairment loss is warranted.

For long-lived assets to be held and used, if an impairment indicator exists, the Company compares the expected future undiscounted cash flows against the carrying amount of that asset. If the sum of the estimated undiscounted cash flows is less than the carrying amount of the asset, the Company would record an impairment loss for the carrying amount in excess of the estimated fair value, if any, of the asset.

For Properties to be disposed of, an impairment loss is recognized when the fair value of the Property, less the estimated cost to sell, is less than the carrying amount of the Property measured at the time the Company has made the decision to dispose of the Property, has a commitment to sell the Property and/or is actively marketing the Property for sale. A Property to be disposed of is reported at the lower of its carrying amount or its estimated fair value, less costs to sell. Subsequent to the date that a Property is held for disposition, depreciation expense is not recorded. The Company accounts for its Properties held for disposition in accordance with FASB ASC 360-10-35. Accordingly, the results of operations for all assets sold or held for sale are classified as discontinued operations in all periods presented, as applicable.

The Company records acquired intangible assets at their estimated fair value separate and apart from goodwill. The Company amortizes identified intangible assets and liabilities that are determined to have finite lives over the period the assets and liabilities are expected to contribute directly or indirectly to the future cash flows of the property or business acquired. In accordance with FASB ASC 360-10-35, intangible assets subject to amortization are reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that their carrying amount may not be recoverable. An impairment loss is recognized if the carrying amount of an intangible asset is not recoverable and its carrying amount exceeds its estimated fair value.

The excess of the cost of an acquired entity over the net of the amounts assigned to assets acquired (including identified intangible assets) and liabilities assumed is recorded as goodwill. In accordance with Codification Topic “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets” (“FASB ASC 350”), goodwill is not amortized but is tested for impairment at a level of reporting referred to as a reporting unit on an annual basis, or more frequently if events or changes in circumstances indicate that the asset might be impaired.

Notes receivable generally are stated at their outstanding unpaid principal balances net of any deferred fees or costs on originated loans, unamortized discounts or premiums, and an allowance. Interest income is accrued on the unpaid principal balance. Discounts or premiums are amortized to income using the interest method. In certain cases, the Company finances the sales of homes to its customers (referred to as “Chattel Loans”) which loans are secured by the homes. The valuation of an allowance for doubtful accounts for the Chattel Loans is calculated based on delinquency trends, average annual default rates, loss rates and the current estimated market value of the underlying manufactured home collateral.

The Company also provides financing for nonrefundable up-front payments on sales of new or upgrades of right-to-use contracts (“Contracts Receivable”). Based upon historical collection rates and current economic trends, when an up-front payment is financed, a reserve is established for a portion of the Contracts Receivable balance estimated to be uncollectible. The reserve and the rate at which the Company provides for losses on its Contracts Receivable could be increased or decreased in the future based on its actual collection experience. (See Note 6 in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained in this Form 10-Q.)

Financial instruments that potentially could subject the Company to significant concentrations of credit risk consist principally of notes receivable. Concentrations of credit risk with respect to notes receivable are limited due to the size of the receivable and geographic diversity of the underlying Properties.

Investments in joint ventures in which the Company does not have a controlling direct or indirect voting interest, but can exercise significant influence over the entity with respect to its operations and major decisions, are accounted for using the equity method of accounting whereby the cost of an investment is adjusted for the Company’s share of the equity in net income or loss from the date of acquisition and reduced by distributions received. The income or loss of each entity is allocated in accordance with the provisions of the applicable operating agreements. The allocation provisions in these agreements may differ from the ownership interests held by each investor. (See Note 5 in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained in this Form 10-Q.)

The Properties are covered against losses caused by various events including fire, flood, property damage, earthquake, windstorm and business interruption by insurance policies containing various deductible requirements and coverage limits. Recoverable costs are classified in other assets as incurred. Insurance proceeds are applied against the asset when received. Recoverable costs relating to capital items are treated in accordance with the Company’s capitalization policy. The book value of the original capital item is written off once the value of the impaired asset has been determined. Insurance proceeds relating to the capital costs are recorded as income in the period they are received.

Codification Topic “Derivatives and Hedging” (“FASB ASC 815”) provides the disclosure requirements for derivatives and hedging activities with the intent to provide users of financial statements an enhanced understanding of: (a) how and why an entity uses derivative instruments, (b) how the entity accounts for derivative instruments and related hedged items, and (c) how derivative instruments and related hedged items affect an entity’s financial position, financial performance and cash flows. Further,

As required by FASB ASC 815, the Company records all derivatives on the balance sheet at fair value. The Company’s objective in utilizing interest rate derivatives is to add stability to its interest expense and to manage its exposure to interest rate movements. To accomplish this objective, the Company primarily uses interest rate swaps as part of its interest rate risk management strategy. Interest rate swaps designated as cash flow hedges involve the receipt of variable amounts from a counterparty in exchange for the Company making fixed-rate payments over the life of the agreements without exchange of the underlying notional amount.

The effective portion of changes in the fair value of derivatives designated and that qualify as cash flow hedges are recorded on the Consolidated Balance Sheets in accumulated other comprehensive loss and is subsequently reclassified into earnings on the Consolidated Statements of Income and Comprehensive Income in the period that the hedged forecasted transaction affects earnings. Any ineffective portion of the change in fair value of the derivative will be recognized directly in earnings. (See Note 8 in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained in this Form 10-Q.)

The Company has made the election to use the exception in Codification Topic “Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures” (“FASB ASC 820”) with respect to measuring counterparty credit risk for derivative instruments, consistent with the guidance in FASB ASC 820. The Company recognizes that key market participants take into account the existence of each arrangement that mitigate credit risk exposure in the event of default (i.e., master netting arrangements with counterparty). As such, the Company formally elects to apply the portfolio exception in FASB ASC 820 with respect to measuring counterparty credit risk for all of its derivative transactions subject to master netting arrangements. The adoption of this update did not have an impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

The Company’s financial instruments include notes receivable, accounts receivable, accounts payable, other accrued expenses, interest rate swaps and mortgage notes payable.

Codification Topic “Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures” (“FASB ASC 820”) establishes a three-level valuation hierarchy for disclosure of fair value measurements. The valuation hierarchy is based upon the transparency of inputs to the valuation of an asset or liability as of the measurement date. A financial instrument’s categorization within the valuation hierarchy is based upon the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement. The three levels are defined as follows:

Income from home sales is recognized when the earnings process is complete. The earnings process is complete when the home has been delivered, the purchaser has accepted the home and title has transferred.

In July 2012, the FASB issued ASU 2012-02, “Intangibles - Goodwill and Other” (“ASU 2012-02”). ASU 2012-02 amends current guidance to allow an entity to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether it is necessary to perform the annual quantitative indefinite-lived intangible asset impairment test. Under this amendment, an entity would not be required to calculate the fair value of an indefinite-lived intangible asset unless the entity determines, based on a qualitative assessment, that it is more likely than not that its fair value is less than its carrying amount. ASU 2012-02 applies to all companies that have indefinite-lived intangible assets reported in their financial statements. The provisions of ASU 2012-02 are effective for annual reporting periods beginning after September 15, 2012. The Company has not yet adopted this pronouncement, but does not believe it will have an impact on the Company's consolidated financial statements.

Note 2 – Earnings Per Common Share

Earnings per common share are based on the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during each year. Codification Topic “Earnings Per Share” (“FASB ASC 260”) defines the calculation of basic and fully diluted earnings per share. Basic and fully diluted earnings per share are based on the weighted average shares outstanding during each year and basic earnings per share exclude any dilutive effects of options, warrants and convertible securities. The conversion of OP Units has been excluded from the basic earnings per share calculation. The conversion of an OP Unit for a share of common stock has no material effect on earnings per common share on a fully diluted basis.

________________________________

Note 3 – Common Stock and Other Equity Related Transactions

Note 3 – Common Stock and Other Equity Related Transactions (continued)

Note 4 – Investment in Real Estate

Land improvements consist primarily of improvements such as grading, landscaping and infrastructure items such as streets, sidewalks or water mains. Buildings and other depreciable property consist of permanent buildings in the Properties such as clubhouses, laundry facilities, maintenance storage facilities, rental units and furniture, fixtures, equipment, and in-place leases.

Note 5 – Investment in Joint Ventures

______________________

Note 6 – Notes Receivable

Note 7 – Borrowing Arrangements

Note 7 – Borrowing Arrangements (continued)

Note 8 – Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities

Note 8 – Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities (continued)

Note 9 – Deferred Revenue-Right-to-use contracts and Deferred commission expense

Components of the change in deferred revenue-right-to-use contracts and deferred commission expense are as follows (amounts in thousands):

Note 10 – Stock Option Plan and Stock Grants

The Company accounts for its stock-based compensation in accordance with the Codification Topic “Compensation – Stock Compensation” (“FASB ASC 718”).

Note 10 – Stock Option Plan and Stock Grants (continued)

Note 11 – Long-Term Cash Incentive Plan

The Company is accounting for the 2010 LTIP in accordance with FASB ASC 718. The amount accrued for the 2010 LTIP reflects the Committee’s evaluation of the 2010 LTIP based on forecasts and other information presented to the Committee and are subject to performance in line with forecasts and final evaluation and determination by the Committee. There can be no assurances that the Company’s estimates of the probable outcome will be representative of the actual outcome.

As part of the Company's effort to realize the value of its Properties that are subject to rent control, the Company has initiated lawsuits against certain localities in California. The Company's goal is to achieve a level of regulatory fairness in California's rent control jurisdictions, and in particular those jurisdictions that prohibit increasing rents to market upon turnover. Such regulations allow tenants to sell their homes for a price that includes a premium above the intrinsic value of the homes. The premium represents the value of the future discounted rent-controlled rents, which is fully capitalized into the prices of the homes sold. In the Company's view, such regulations result in a transfer to the tenants of the value of the Company's land, which would otherwise be reflected in market rents. The Company has discovered through the litigation process that certain municipalities considered condemning the Company's Properties at values well below the value of the underlying land. In the Company's view, a failure to articulate market rents for sites governed by restrictive rent control would put the Company at risk for condemnation or eminent domain proceedings based on artificially reduced rents. Such a physical taking, should it occur, could represent substantial lost value to stockholders. The Company is cognizant of the need for affordable housing in the jurisdictions, but asserts that restrictive rent regulation does not promote this purpose because tenants pay to their sellers as part of the purchase price of the home all the future rent savings that are expected to result from the rent control regulations, eliminating any supposed improvement in the affordability of housing. In a more well-balanced regulatory environment, the Company would receive market rents that would eliminate the price premium for homes, which would trade at or near their intrinsic value. Such efforts include the following matters:

The Company sued the City of San Rafael in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, challenging its rent control ordinance (the "Ordinance") on constitutional grounds. The Company believes the litigation was settled by the City's agreement to amend the ordinance to permit adjustments to market rent upon turnover. The City subsequently rejected the settlement agreement. The Court refused to enforce the settlement agreement, and submitted to a jury the claim that it had been breached. In October 2002, a jury found no breach of the settlement agreement.

The City and the residents' association (which intervened in the case) appealed, and the Company cross-appealed. The briefing has been completed, but a date for oral argument remains to be set by the Court of Appeals.

In June 2003, the Company won a judgment against the City of Santee in California Superior Court (Case No. 777094). The effect of the judgment was to invalidate, on state law grounds, two rent control ordinances the City of Santee had enforced against the Company and other property owners. However, the Court allowed the City to continue to enforce a rent control ordinance that predated the two invalid ordinances (the "prior ordinance"). As a result of the judgment the Company was entitled to collect a one-time rent increase based upon the difference in annual adjustments between the invalid ordinance(s) and the prior ordinance and to adjust its base rents to reflect what the Company could have charged had the prior ordinance been continually in effect. The City of Santee appealed the judgment. The City and the tenant association also each sued the Company in separate actions alleging that the rent adjustments pursuant to the judgment violated the prior ordinance (Case Nos. GIE 020887 and GIE 020524), sought to rescind the rent adjustments, and sought refunds of amounts paid, and penalties and damages in these separate actions. As a result of further proceedings and a series of appeals and remands, the Company was required to and did release the additional rents to the tenant association's counsel for disbursement to the tenants, and the Company has ceased collecting the disputed rent amounts.

The tenant association continued to seek damages, penalties and fees in their separate action based on the same claims the City made on the tenants' behalf in the City's case. The Company moved for judgment on the pleadings in the tenant association's

In addition, the Company sued the City of Santee in federal court alleging all three of the ordinances are unconstitutional under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. On October 13, 2010, the District Court: (1) dismissed the Company's claims without prejudice on the ground that they were not ripe because the Company had not filed and received from the City a final decision on a rent increase petition, and (2) found that those claims are not foreclosed by any of the state court rulings. On November 10, 2010, the Company filed a notice of appeal from the District Court's ruling dismissing the Company's claims. On April 20, 2011, the appeal was voluntarily dismissed pursuant to stipulation of the parties.

In order to ripen its claims, the Company filed a rent increase petition with the City. At a hearing held on October 6, 2011, the City's Manufactured Home Fair Practices Commission voted to deny that petition, and subsequently entered written findings denying it. The Company appealed that determination to the Santee City Council, which on January 25, 2012 voted to deny the appeal. In view of that adverse final decision on its rent increase petition, on January 31, 2012 the Company filed a new complaint in federal court alleging that the City's ordinance effectuates a regulatory and private taking of the Company's property and is unconstitutional under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. On April 2, 2012, the City filed a motion to dismiss the new complaint. That motion has not yet been ruled on. In addition, the Company also filed in state court on February 1, 2012 a petition for a writ of administrative mandamus, and on September 28, 2012 a motion for writ of administrative mandamus, seeking orders correcting and vacating the decisions of the City and its Manufactured Home Fair Practices Commission, and directing that the Company's rent increase petition be granted. The Company's motion for writ of administrative mandamus is currently scheduled for hearing on February 22, 2013.

On April 30, 2009, a group of tenants at the Company's California Hawaiian Property in San Jose, California filed a complaint in the California Superior Court for Santa Clara County alleging that the Company has failed to properly maintain the Property and has improperly reduced the services provided to the tenants, among other allegations. The Company moved to compel

In response to motions to dismiss, the trial court dismissed: (1) the requests for declaratory relief as being duplicative of the claims for breach of contract and (2) certain of the breach of contract claims as being not ripe until the limits of underlying insurance policies have been exhausted. On or about January 28, 2008, the Company filed its Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), which the insurers answered. In response to the court's dismissal of the SAC's claims against Aon, the Company ultimately filed, on February 2, 2009, a new Count VIII against Aon alleging a claim for breach of contract, which Aon answered. In January 2010, the parties engaged in a settlement mediation, which did not result in a settlement. In June 2010, the Company filed motions for partial summary judgment against the insurance companies seeking a finding that our hurricane debris cleanup costs are within the extra expense coverage of our excess insurance policies. On December 13, 2010, the Court granted the motion. Discovery is proceeding with respect to various remaining issues, including the amounts of the debris cleanup costs the Company is entitled to collect pursuant to the Court's order granting the Company partial summary judgment.

the Texas Property Code; (4) Florida Code §§ 509.001, et seq.; (5) Chapter 119B of the Nevada Administrative Code; (6) Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq., (7) Business & Professions Code §§ 17500; (8) Fraud - Intentional Misrepresentation and False Promise; (9) Fraud - Omission; (10) Negligent Misrespresentation; and (11) Unjust Enrichment. The complaint seeks, among other relief, rescission of the membership agreements and refund of the member dues of plaintiffs and all others who purchased a membership from or paid membership dues to the Company since July 21, 2007; general and special compensatory damages; reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses of suit; punitive and exemplary damages; a permanent injunction against the complained of conduct; and pre-judgment interest.

The Company is involved in various other legal and regulatory proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Such proceedings include, but are not limited to, notices, consent decrees, information requests, and additional permit requirements and other similar enforcement actions by governmental agencies relating to the Company's water and wastewater treatment plants and other waste treatment facilities. Additionally, in the ordinary course of business, the Company's operations are subject to audit by various taxing authorities. Management believes that all proceedings herein described or referred to, taken together, are not expected to have a material adverse impact on the Company. In addition, to the extent any such proceedings or audits relate to newly acquired Properties, the Company considers any potential indemnification obligations of sellers in favor of the Company.

Note 13 – Acquisitions