A Landlord’s Lethal Omission: How JMS Companies Sold Lead Exposure As Housing
The Non-Financial Ledger
A lease is a contract. You pay rent, and in return, you get a home. The assumption at the core of that exchange is safety. You assume the roof won’t leak, the pipes will work, and the very walls around you aren’t silently poisoning your family. For tenants of JMS Companies, operating as Choice Property Management in Indiana, that fundamental trust was systematically broken. This isn’t a story about paperwork or bureaucratic fines. This is a story about the violence of negligence. It is about the quiet dread that settles into a parent’s heart when they learn the dust their child plays in could be laced with a neurotoxin, all because their landlord chose profit over protection.
Imagine signing a lease, moving in your family, and setting up a child’s bedroom in a house built before 1978. You have a right to know if that house contains lead paint. The law is explicit. Your landlord must give you a pamphlet, a warning statement, and disclose any known hazards. This isn’t optional. It is the bare minimum of human decency codified into law. Yet, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, JMS Companies failed to do this again, and again, and again. Each failure was a conscious decision to withhold critical health information, to treat tenants not as people deserving of safety but as revenue streams from whom costs could be cut.
The betrayal deepens when renovations begin. The sound of construction in a neighboring unit or on your own property should signal improvement. Under the management of JMS Companies, it signaled a threat. Federal law mandates strict procedures for renovating older homes to contain lead dust. Plastic sheeting, warning signs, certified renovators, and specialized cleaning are required to prevent the microscopic poison from coating every surface. JMS Companies failed on all counts at a South Bend property. They did not use a certified firm. They did not post signs. They did not contain the waste. They did not ensure workers were trained. They turned a renovation into a potential contamination event, spreading the very hazard the law was written to contain.
What is the cost of a childhood altered by developmental delays? What is the weight of a lifetime of health problems born from a landlord’s decision to skip a checklist? These debts do not appear on any corporate balance sheet, but they are paid by the families left in the dark.
The damage caused by lead is irreversible. It attacks a child’s developing brain and nervous system. It can lead to a lower IQ, learning disabilities, and behavioral problems. The violation is the potential theft of a child’s future. It is the anxiety of every parent in one of those 26 properties who now must wonder: was my family exposed? Was that unexplained illness, that difficulty in school, a consequence of the air we breathed in our own home?
This is the true accounting of JMS Companies’ actions. The EPA fine of $20,000 is a footnote. The real ledger is written in the fear and uncertainty imposed upon dozens of families. It is an account of dignity stripped away, of the right to a safe home treated as an inconvenience. The ledger records the profound betrayal of a company that held the health of its tenants in its hands and chose to look the other way, prioritizing its bottom line over the basic well-being of the people who paid them for shelter.
Societal Impact Mapping
Public Health
The actions of JMS Companies represent a direct assault on public health. Lead is a potent neurotoxin with no safe level of exposure, and children under six are exquisitely vulnerable. By failing to provide the “Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home” pamphlet and omitting lead warning statements from at least seven leases, the company denied families the basic information needed to protect themselves. This is an active choice that perpetuates a cycle of preventable harm. When a child is exposed to lead dust, the damage is permanent. It can manifest as decreased cognitive function, attention disorders, and poor academic achievement, creating lifelong barriers to success and well-being. Each of the 89 documented violations is a potential exposure pathway for a family.
The renovation at 2517 South Twyckenham Drive is a case study in public health malpractice. The EPA documented a cascade of failures: no certified firm, no warning signs, no containment of dust and debris, no safe work practices. When lead paint is disturbed without these controls, toxic dust is aerosolized and spread throughout a home, settling on floors, toys, and furniture. This dust is the primary way children are poisoned. They ingest it through normal hand-to-mouth behavior. JMS Companies’ complete disregard for these Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP) rules created a high-risk environment, turning a home improvement project into a public health menace for the occupants and potentially their neighbors.
Economic Inequality
Lead poisoning disproportionately affects low-income communities and renters, who often live in older, less-maintained housing stock and have less power to demand repairs or safe conditions. JMS Companies’ business model, as evidenced by these violations, exploits this power imbalance. The federal lead disclosure and renovation laws were created to level this playing field, to give tenants critical information and protection that the market would not otherwise provide. By systematically ignoring these laws, JMS Companies shifted the cost of their negligence onto their tenants.
The cost savings from not hiring a certified firm, not training workers, and not using proper containment materials go directly to the company’s bottom line. The consequences—potential medical bills, the need for special education services, diminished lifetime earning potential for an affected child—are borne entirely by the tenant families. The $20,000 fine, which amounts to just over $224 per violation, is treated as a minor cost of doing business. For a family facing the devastating diagnosis of lead poisoning, the financial and emotional costs are incalculable and lifelong. This is a classic case of privatizing profit while socializing risk, with the most vulnerable paying the heaviest price.
Environmental Degradation
The impact of JMS Companies’ negligence extends beyond the four walls of their rental units. Lead does not biodegrade. When renovation waste isn’t properly contained, as was the case at the South Bend property, lead dust and paint chips escape the work area. This toxic material contaminates the soil around the home, the yard where children might play, and the garden where food might be grown. Rainwater runoff can carry these lead particles into local storm drains, polluting waterways and ecosystems.
Each time a window is opened or a door is used in a contaminated home, lead dust can be released into the surrounding neighborhood. The failure to use HEPA-filtered vacuums and proper cleaning protocols means that the poison isn’t actually eliminated, just moved around to some other spot instead. Which naturally creates a persistent environmental hazard that can affect neighbors and the wider community long after the renovation is complete. The company’s failure to follow the law resulted in the creation of a miniature toxic site, contributing to the legacy of lead contamination that plagues many older urban and suburban areas.
Legal Receipts
The following are the direct factual allegations and counts of violation from the EPA’s Consent Agreement and Final Order against JMS Companies, LLC. The sheer volume and repetition paint a stark picture of systematic disregard for tenant safety and federal law.
Lease Disclosure Violations (Counts 1-69)
Counts 1 – 7: Failure to Include a Lead Warning Statement“Respondent’s failure to include a lead warning statement, either within the contract or as an attachment to the contract for the lease of Respondent’s properties for 7 lease contracts… constitutes 7 separate violations of 40 C.F.R. § 745.113(b)(1)…”
Counts 8 – 15: Failure to Disclose Lead Knowledge“Respondent’s failure to include a statement disclosing either the presence of any known lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards in the target housing or a lack of knowledge of such presence… constitutes 8 separate violations of 40 C.F.R. § 745.113(b)(2)…”
Counts 16 – 24: Failure to Include Lead Records or Reports“Respondent’s failure to include a list of any records or reports available to the lessor regarding lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards… or a statement that no such records are available… constitutes 9 separate violations of 40 C.F.R. § 745.113(b)(3)…”
Counts 25-40: Failure to Include Affirmation of Receipt of Pamphlet“Respondent’s failure to include a statement by the lessee affirming receipt of the information set out in 40 C.F.R. § 745.113(b)(2) and (3) and the Lead Hazard Information Pamphlet… constitutes 16 separate violations of 40 C.F.R. § 745.113(b)(4)…”
Counts 41-55: Failure to Include Required Statement by Agents“Respondent’s failure to include… a statement by one or more agents involved in the transaction… that the agent(s) has informed the lessor of the lessor’s obligations… constitutes 15 separate violations of 40 C.F.R. § 745.113(b)(5)…”
Counts 56-69: Failure to Certify Accuracy of Statements“Respondent’s failure to include the signatures of the lessor, agent, and the lessees certifying to the accuracy of their statements… constitutes 14 separate violations of 40 C.F.R. § 745.113(b)(6)…”
Unsafe Renovation Violations (Counts 70-89)
Count 70: Failure to Provide Required Pamphlet“For the renovation project at the Subject Property, Respondent’s failure to provide the adult occupant of the unit with the EPA-approved lead hazard information pamphlet violated 40 C.F.R. § 745.84(a)(2)…”
Count 71: Failure to Post Warning Signs“For the renovation project at the Subject Property, Respondent’s failure to post signs clearly defining the work area and warning occupants… violated 40 C.F.R. § 745.85(a)(1)…”
Counts 72-77: Failure to Maintain Records“For the renovation project at the Subject Property, Respondent’s failure to retain the records necessary to demonstrate compliance… constitutes 6 violations of 40 C.F.R. § 745.86(b)(6)…”
Count 78: Failure to Obtain Firm Certification“Respondent’s failure to obtain firm certification from EPA prior to performing renovations for compensation at the Subject Property violated 40 C.F.R. § 745.81(a)(2)(ii)…”
Count 79: Failure to Use Certified or Trained Renovators“Respondent’s failure to ensure that all individuals performing renovation activities… are either certified renovators or have been trained by a certified renovator… violated 40 C.F.R. § 745.89(d)(1)…”
Count 80: Failure to Assign Renovator Responsibilities“Respondent’s failure to ensure that a certified renovator is assigned to each renovation… and discharges all of the certified renovator responsibilities… violated 40 C.F.R. § 745.89(d)(2)…”
Counts 81-83: Failure to Prepare the Work Area“Respondent’s failure to remove all objects from the work area… or cover them… violated 40 C.F.R. § 745.85(a)(2)(i)(A)… failure to… close and cover all ducts… violated 40 C.F.R. § 745.85(a)(2)(i)(B)… failure to… cover the floor surface… violated 40 C.F.R. § 745.85(a)(2)(i)(D)…”
Count 84: Failure to Decontaminate“Respondent’s failure to use precautions to ensure that all personnel, tools, and other items… are free of dust and debris before leaving the work area violated 40 C.F.R. § 745.85(a)(2)(i)(E)…”
Count 85: Prohibited Work Practices“Respondent’s failure to prohibit the use of machines that remove lead-based paint through high speed operation… unless such machines are used with HEPA exhaust control, violated 40 C.F.R. § 745.85(a)(3)(ii)…”
Counts 86-87: Failure to Contain Waste“Respondent’s failure to contain waste from renovation activities… violated 40 C.F.R. § 745.85(a)(4)(i)… [and] failure to… ensure that waste… was stored under containment… violated 40 C.F.R. § 745.85(a)(4)(ii)…”
Counts 88-89: Failure to Clean Properly“Respondent’s failure to clean the work area until no dust, debris or residue remains… violated 40 C.F.R. § 745.85(a)(5)… [and] failure to collect all paint chips and debris and seal the material in a heavy-duty bag… violated 40 C.F.R. § 745.85(a)(5)(i)(A)…”
What Now?
The company responsible for these 89 violations is JMS Companies, LLC, which does business under the name Choice Property Management. The EPA settlement indicates they neither admitted nor denied the factual allegations, but consented to the penalty. While this case is officially closed, the pattern of behavior reveals a business model that treats tenant safety as a line-item to be cut.
The only meaningful defense against such predatory practices is collective power. The laws exist, but enforcement is slow and often only happens after the damage is done. The real power lies in organized communities that know their rights and demand accountability before a crisis occurs.
Corporate Role Watchlist:
- JMS Companies, LLC
- Choice Property Management
Regulatory Body Watchlist:
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Support your local tenant unions. If one doesn’t exist, start one. Share information about landlord-tenant law. Document every communication with your property manager. Demand proof of RRP certification before any renovation work begins in your pre-1978 building. Your safety is not negotiable. It is a right you must be prepared to fight for.
FIND A TENANT UNION NEAR YOUThe source document for this investigation is attached below.
The consent agreement can be viewed on this following EPA link in case you want to fact check me: https://yosemite.epa.gov/OA/RHC/EPAAdmin.nsf/Filings/E00D1DC80314D36E85258B4E006879EA/$File/TSCA-05-2024-0010_CAFO_JMSCompaniesLLCdbaChoicePropertyManagement_MishawakaIndiana_29PGS.pdf
Explore by category
Product Safety Violations
When companies sell dangerous goods, consumers pay the price.
View Cases →Financial Fraud & Corruption
Lies, scams, and executive impunity that distort markets.
View Cases →
