EQUITY LIFESTYLE PROPERTIES INC - Quarter Report: 2012 March (Form 10-Q)

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2012

For the transition period from             to            

Commission file number: 1-11718

EQUITY LIFESTYLE PROPERTIES, INC.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

(312) 279-1400

(Registrant’s Telephone Number, Including Area Code)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes  x    No  ¨

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 by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).
Yes  ¨     No  x

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

41,310,093 shares of Common Stock as of May 2, 2012.

Table of Contents

Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.

Table of Contents

Part I - Financial Information

2

Table of Contents

Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.

Consolidated Balance Sheets

As of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011

(amounts in thousands, except share and per share data)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements.

3

Table of Contents

Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.

Consolidated Statements of Income and Comprehensive Income

For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2012 and 2011

(amounts in thousands, except share and per share data)

(unaudited)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements.

4

Table of Contents

Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.

Consolidated Statements of Income and Comprehensive Income (Continued)

For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2012 and 2011

(amounts in thousands, except share and per share data)

(unaudited)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements.

5

Table of Contents

Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.

Consolidated Statements of Changes in Equity

For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2012

(amounts in thousands)

(unaudited)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements.

6

Table of Contents

Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2012 and 2011

(amounts in thousands)

(unaudited)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements.

7

Table of Contents

Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows (continued)

For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2012 and 2011

(amounts in thousands)

(unaudited)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements.

8

Table of Contents

Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

Definition of Terms

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.

Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

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 Company applies the equity method of accounting to entities in which the Company does not have a controlling direct or indirect voting interest or for variable interest entities where it is not considered the primary beneficiary, but can exercise influence over the entity with respect to its operations and major decisions. The cost method is applied when (i) the investment is minimal (typically less than 5%) and (ii) the Company’s investment is passive.

9

Table of Contents

Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (continued)

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.

The Company has two reportable segments which are the Property Operations and Home Sales and Rental Operations segments. The Property Operations segment owns and operates land lease Properties and the Home Sales and Rental Operations segment purchases, sells and leases homes at the Properties. The distribution of the Properties throughout the United States reflects the Company’s belief that geographic diversification helps insulate the portfolio from regional economic influences. The Company intends to target new acquisitions in or near markets where the Properties are located and will also consider acquisitions of Properties outside such markets.

In accordance with FASB ASC 805, the Company recognizes all the assets acquired and all the liabilities assumed in a transaction at the acquisition-date fair value. The Company also expenses transaction costs as they are incurred. Certain purchase price adjustments may be made within one year following any acquisition and applied retroactively to the date of acquisition.

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.

Real estate is recorded at cost less accumulated depreciation. Depreciation is computed on the straight-line basis over the estimated useful lives of the assets. The Company generally uses a 30-year estimated life for buildings and structural and land improvements acquired (including site development), a ten-year estimated life for building upgrades, a five-year estimated life for furniture, fixtures and equipment and a one-year life for acquired in-place leases. New rental units are generally depreciated using a 20-year estimated life from each model year down to a salvage value of 40% of the original costs. Used rental units are generally depreciated based on the estimated life of the unit with no estimated salvage value.

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.

10

Table of Contents

Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (continued)

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 have been classified as discontinued operations in all periods presented.

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.

As of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the carrying amounts of identified intangible assets and goodwill, a component of “Escrow deposits and other assets” on the Company’s consolidated balance sheets, were approximately $12.1 million. As of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, this amount was comprised of approximately $4.3 million of identified intangible assets and approximately $7.8 million of goodwill. Accumulated amortization of identified intangible assets was approximately $1.3 million and $1.2 million as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. Amortization expense for the identified intangible assets was approximately $0.1 million and $0.5 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

Estimated amortization of identified intangible assets for each of the next five years are as follows (amounts in thousands):

The Company considers all demand and money market accounts and certificates of deposit with a maturity date, when purchased, of three months or less to be cash equivalents. The cash and cash equivalents as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 include approximately $4.2 million of restricted cash. Cash is generally restricted for risk and insurance purposes.

11

Table of Contents

Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (continued)

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 and a comparison of the outstanding principal balance of each note compared to the N.A.D.A. (National Automobile Dealers Association) value and the current estimated market value of the underlying manufactured home collateral.

During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company purchased Chattel Loans that were recorded at fair value at the time of acquisition under the Codification Topic “Loans and Debt Securities Acquired with Deteriorated Credit Quality” (“FASB ASC 310-30”). (See Note 19 in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained in the 2011 Form 10-K for a detailed description of our recent Acquisition (as defined herein).) The fair value of these Chattel Loans includes an estimate of losses that are expected to be incurred over the estimated remaining lives of the receivables, and therefore no allowance for losses was recorded for these Chattel Loans as of the transaction date. The fair value is estimated based on a number of factors including customer delinquency status, FICO scores, the original down payment amount and below-market stated interest rates. Through March 31, 2012, the short-term historical performance of these loans has indicated a default rate of 21% and a recovery rate of 35%, which is slightly higher than originally estimated. Management is currently reviewing these assumptions and may adjust its estimates as needed as more information becomes available. A probable decrease in management’s expectation of future cash collections related to these Chattel Loans could result in the need to record an allowance for credit losses in the future. Due to the size of the Chattel Loan pool and maturity dates ranging up to 29 years, future credit losses or changes to interest income could be significant.

The Company also provides financing for nonrefundable upfront payments on entering 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.)

On August 14, 2008, the Company purchased Contracts Receivable that were recorded at fair value at the time of acquisition under the FASB ASC 310-30. The fair value of these Contracts Receivable included an estimate of losses that were expected to be incurred over the estimated life of the Contracts Receivable, and therefore no allowance for losses was recorded for these Contracts Receivable as of the transaction date. Through March 31, 2012, the credit performance of these Contracts Receivable has been better than the assumptions used in determining its initial fair value, and the Company regularly updates its expectations regarding the amounts and timing of future cash flows.

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.)

12

Table of Contents

Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (continued)

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.

Approximately 70 Florida Properties suffered damage from five hurricanes that struck the state during 2004 and 2005. The Company estimates its total claim to be approximately $21.0 million and has made claims for full recovery of these amounts, subject to deductibles. The Company has received proceeds from insurance carriers of approximately $14.7 million through March 31, 2012. The proceeds were accounted for in accordance with the Codification Topic “Contingencies” (“FASB ASC 450”).

On June 22, 2007, the Company filed a lawsuit related to some of the unpaid claims against certain insurance carriers and its insurance broker. (See Note 12 in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained in this Form 10-Q for further discussion of this lawsuit.)

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, qualitative disclosures are required that explain the Company’s objectives and strategies for using derivatives, as well as quantitative disclosures about the fair value of and gains and losses on derivative instruments, and disclosures about credit-risk-related contingent features in derivative instruments.

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.

13

Table of Contents

Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (continued)

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:

Level 1 – Inputs to the valuation methodology are quoted prices (unadjusted) for identical assets or liabilities in active markets.

Level 2 – Inputs to the valuation methodology include quoted prices for similar assets and liabilities in active markets, and inputs that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly, for substantially the full term of the financial instrument.

Level 3 – Inputs to the valuation methodology are unobservable and significant to the fair value measurement.

The Company’s mortgage notes payable, a fair value of approximately $2.2 billion, were measured using quoted prices and observable inputs from similar assets and liabilities (Level 2). At March 31, 2012, the Company’s cash flow hedge of interest rate risk included in accrued payroll and other operating expenses, was measured using quoted prices and observable inputs from similar assets and liabilities (Level 2). The Company considers its own credit risk as well as the credit risk of its counterparties when evaluating the fair value of its derivative. Any adjustments resulting from credit risk are recorded as a change in fair value of derivative and amortization in the current period Consolidated Statements of Income and Comprehensive Income. The fair values of the Company’s remaining financial instruments approximate their carrying or contract values.

Deferred financing costs, net include fees and costs incurred to obtain long-term financing. The costs are being amortized over the terms of the respective loans on a basis that approximates level yield. Unamortized deferred financing fees are written-off when debt is retired before the maturity date. Upon amendment of the line of credit or refinancing of mortgage debt, unamortized deferred financing fees are accounted for in accordance with, Codification Sub-Topic “Modifications and Extinguishments” (“FASB ASC 470-50-40”). Accumulated amortization for such costs was $16.4 million and $15.1 million at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively.

The Company accounts for leases with its customers as operating leases. Rental income is recognized over the term of the respective lease or the length of a customer’s stay, the majority of which are for a term of not greater than one year. The Company will reserve for receivables when it believes the ultimate collection is less than probable. The Company’s allowance for uncollectible rents receivable was approximately $4.5 million and $4.4 million as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively.

14

Table of Contents

Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (continued)

The Company accounts for the entry of right-to-use contracts in accordance with the Codification Topic “Revenue Recognition” (“FASB ASC 605”). A right-to-use contract gives the customer the right to a set schedule of usage at a specified group of Properties. Customers may choose to upgrade their contracts to increase their usage and the number of Properties they may access. A contract requires the customer to make annual payments during the term of the contract and may require an upfront nonrefundable payment. The stated term of a right-to-use contract is at least one-year and the customer may renew his contract by continuing to make the annual payments. The Company will recognize the upfront non-refundable payments over the estimated customer life which, based on historical attrition rates, the Company has estimated to be from one to 31 years. For example, the Company has currently estimated that 7.9% of customers who enter a new right-to-use contract will terminate their contract after five years. Therefore, the upfront nonrefundable payments from 7.9% of the contracts entered in any particular period are amortized on a straight-line basis over a period of five years as five years is the estimated customer life for 7.9% of the Company’s customers who enter a contract. The historical attrition rates for upgrade contracts are lower than for new contracts, and therefore, the nonrefundable upfront payments for upgrade contracts are amortized at a different rate than for new contracts.

Right-to-use annual payments by customers under the terms of the right-to-use contracts are deferred and recognized ratably over the one-year period in which access to sites at certain Properties are provided.

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.

On March 4, 2011, the Company, on behalf of selling stockholders, closed on a public offering of 8,000,000 shares of 8.034% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Perpetual Preferred Stock (the “Series A Preferred Stock”), par value $0.01 per share, liquidation preference of $25.00 per share, at a price of $24.75 per share. The selling stockholders received the Series A Preferred Stock in exchange for $200 million of previously issued series D and series F Perpetual Preferred OP Units. The Company did not receive any proceeds from the offering. The Company has the option at anytime to redeem the Series A Preferred Stock at a redemption price of $25.00 per share, plus accumulated and unpaid dividends.

The Company accounts for the Preferred Stock in accordance with the Codification Topic “Distinguishing Liabilities from Equity – SEC Materials” (“FASB ASC 480-10-S99”). Holders of the Series A Preferred Stock have certain preference rights with respect to the common stock. Based on the Company’s analysis, the Series A Preferred Stock has been classified as redeemable interests outside of permanent equity in the mezzanine section of the Company Consolidated Balance Sheets as a result of certain registration requirements or other terms.

In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-05 “Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Presentation of Comprehensive Income.” ASU No. 2011-05 amends current guidance found in FASB ASC 220, “Comprehensive Income.” ASU No. 2011-05 requires entities to present comprehensive income in either: (i) one continuous financial statement or (ii) two separate but consecutive statements that display net income and the components of other comprehensive income. Totals and individual components of both net income and other comprehensive income must be included in either presentation. ASU No. 2011-05 is effective for the Company beginning with the first quarter of 2012. The Company has updated the presentation of its consolidated financial statements consistent with the provisions of this guidance.

In September 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-08, “Intangibles — Goodwill and Other” (“ASU 2011-08”). ASU 2011-08 amends current guidance to allow an entity to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether it is necessary to perform the two-step quantitative goodwill impairment test. Under this amendment an entity would not be required to calculate the fair value of a reporting unit 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 2011-08 applies to all companies that have goodwill reported in their financial statements. The provisions of ASU 2011-08 are effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2011. The adoption of this update, when the Company performs its annual impairment test, is not expected to have an impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

15

Table of Contents

Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (continued)

Certain 2011 amounts have been reclassified to conform to the 2012 presentation. These reclassifications had no material effect on the Consolidated Statements of Income and Comprehensive Income for the Company.

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.

The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted earnings per common share for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 (amounts in thousands):

Note 3 – Common Stock and Other Equity Related Transactions

On March 30, 2012, the Company paid a $0.502125 per share distribution on the Company’s Series A Preferred Stock to Series A preferred stockholders of record on March 19, 2012.

On April 13, 2012, the Company paid a $0.4375 per share distribution for the three months ended March 31, 2012 to common stockholders of record on March 30, 2012.

16

Table of Contents

Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

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.

All acquisitions have been accounted for utilizing the acquisition method of accounting and, accordingly, the results of operations of acquired assets are included in the statements of operations from the dates of acquisition. Certain purchase price adjustments may be made within one year following the acquisition and applied retroactively to the date of acquisition. The Company acquired all of these Properties from unaffiliated third parties. During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company acquired 75 Properties with 30,129 sites for a purchase price of approximately $1.5 billion. (See Note 19 in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements contained in the 2011 Form 10-K for further discussion on this acquisition.)

As of March 31, 2012, the Company had no Properties designated as held for disposition pursuant to FASB ASC 360-10-35.

Note 5 – Investment in Joint Ventures

The Company recorded approximately $0.8 million of equity in income from unconsolidated joint ventures, net of approximately $0.3 million of depreciation expense for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011. The Company received approximately $0.5 million and $0.6 million in distributions from such joint ventures, which were classified as a return on capital and were included in operating activities on the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. Distributions include amounts received from the sale or liquidation of equity in joint venture investments.

The following table summarizes the Company’s investment in unconsolidated joint ventures (with the number of Properties shown parenthetically as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011):

17

Table of Contents

Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

Note 6 – Notes Receivable

As of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the Company had approximately $59.7 million and $64.2 million in notes receivable, respectively. As of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, included in notes receivable, the Company had approximately $39.7 million and $43.4 million, respectively, in Chattel Loans receivable, which require monthly principal and interest payments and are collateralized by homes at certain of the Properties. As of March 31, 2012, the Chattel Loans receivable yielded interest at a stated per annum average rate of approximately 7.8% and had an average term remaining of approximately 15 years. These notes are recorded net of allowances of approximately $0.4 million as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. During the three months ended March 31, 2012 and year ended December 31, 2011, approximately $1.8 million and $2.6 million, respectively, was repaid, an additional $0.2 million and $0.3 million, respectively, was loaned to customers and approximately $1.9 million and $2.7 million, respectively, of homes serving as collateral for Chattel Loans were repossessed and converted to rental units.

As of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the Company had approximately $15.6 million and $16.4 million, respectively, of Contracts Receivable, including allowances of approximately $0.9 million and $1.0 million, respectively. These Contracts Receivable represent loans to customers who have entered right-to-use contracts. The Contracts Receivable yield interest at a stated per annum average rate of 16.0%, have a weighted average term remaining of approximately four years and require monthly payments of principal and interest. During the three months ended March 31, 2012 and year ended December 31, 2011, approximately $1.8 million and $7.3 million, respectively, was repaid and an additional $0.9 million and $6.6 million, respectively, was lent to customers.

Note 7 – Borrowing Arrangements

Mortgage Notes Payable

As of both March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the Company had outstanding mortgage indebtedness on Properties held for long term of approximately $2,075 million and $2,085 million, respectively. The weighted average interest rate including the fair market value adjustment on this mortgage indebtedness for the three months ended March 31, 2012 was approximately 5.5% per annum. The debt bears interest at rates of 4.7% to 8.9% per annum and matures on various dates ranging from 2012 to 2023. The debt encumbered a total of 174 of the Company’s Properties as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 and the carrying value of such Properties was approximately $2,581 million and $2,578 million, respectively, as of such dates.

During April 2012, the Company locked a weighted average interest rate of 4.82% on approximately $155.5 million of financing with a ten year term on two resort Properties and one manufactured home Property that are currently encumbered by $97.6 million of financing that matures on May 1, 2013 and June 1, 2014 which has a weighted average interest rate of 5.51%. However, there can be no assurance as to the amounts, timing, terms or certainty of such anticipated financing.

Term Loan

The Company’s $200.0 million Term Loan matures on June 30, 2017 and has a one-year extension option, an interest rate of LIBOR plus 1.85% to 2.80% per annum and, subject to certain conditions, may be prepaid at any time without premium or penalty after July 1, 2014. Prior to July 1, 2014, a prepayment penalty of 2% of the amount prepaid would be owed. The spread over LIBOR is variable based on leverage measured quarterly throughout the loan term. The Term Loan contains customary representations, warranties and negative and affirmative covenants, and provides for acceleration of principal and payment of all other amounts payable thereunder upon the occurrence of certain events of default. In connection with the Term Loan, the Company also entered into a three-year LIBOR Swap Agreement (the “Swap”) allowing the Company to trade its variable interest rate for a fixed interest rate on the Term Loan. (See Note 8 in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained in this Form 10-Q for further information on the accounting of the Swap.)

18

Table of Contents

Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

Note 7 – Borrowing Arrangements (continued)

Unsecured Line of Credit

As of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the Company’s unsecured Line of Credit (“LOC”) had an availability of $380 million of which no amounts were outstanding. The Company’s LOC with a maximum borrowing capacity of $380 million bears interest at a LIBOR rate plus 1.65% to 2.50%, contains a 0.30% to 0.40% facility fee as well as certain other customary negative and affirmative covenants and has a maturity date of September 18, 2015. The Company has an eight-month extension option under the LOC, subject to payment by it of certain administrative fees and the satisfaction of certain other enumerated conditions. The spread over LIBOR and the facility fee pricing are variable based on leverage throughout the term of the LOC.

The weighted average interest rate for the year ended December 31, 2011 for the Company’s unsecured debt was approximately 3.9% per annum.

As of March 31, 2012, the Company is in compliance with covenants on its borrowing arrangements.

Note 8 – Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities

Cash Flow Hedges of Interest Rate Risk

In connection with the Term Loan, the Company entered into a three-year $200.0 million LIBOR notional swap agreement. (See Note 7 in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements contained in this Form 10-Q for information about the Term Loan related to the $200.0 million notional swap.) The Swap fixes the underlying LIBOR rate on the Term Loan at 1.11% per annum for the first three years. Based on actual leverage as of March 31, 2012, the Company’s spread over LIBOR was 1.95% resulting in an actual all-in interest rate of 3.06% per annum. The Company has designated the swap as a cash flow hedge. No gain or loss was recognized in the Consolidated Statements of Income and Comprehensive Income related to hedge ineffectiveness or to amounts excluded from effectiveness testing on the Company’s cash flow hedge during the three months ended March 31, 2012.

Amounts reported in accumulated other comprehensive loss on the Consolidated Balance Sheets related to derivatives will be reclassified to interest expense as interest payments are made on the Company’s variable-rate debt. During the next twelve months, the Company estimates that an additional $1.6 million will be reclassified as an increase to interest expense.

Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities

The table below presents the fair value of the Company’s derivative financial instruments as well as their classification on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 (amounts in thousands).

Tabular Disclosure of the Effect of Derivative Instruments on the Income Statement

The tables below present the effect of the Company’s derivative financial instruments on the Consolidated Statements of Income and Comprehensive Income for the three months ended March 31, 2012.

19

Table of Contents

Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

Note 8 – Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities (continued)

The Company determined that no adjustment was necessary for nonperformance risk on its derivative obligation. As of March 31, 2012, the Company has not posted any collateral related to this agreement.

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

Upfront payments received upon the entry of right-to-use contracts are recognized in accordance with FASB ASC 605. The Company will recognize the upfront non-refundable payments over the estimated customer life, which, based on historical attrition rates, the Company has estimated to be between one to 31 years. The commissions paid on the entry of right-to-use contracts will be deferred and amortized over the same period as the related revenue.

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”).

Stock-based compensation expense, reported in “General and administrative” on the Consolidated Statements of Income and Comprehensive Income, for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, was approximately $1.4 million and $1.2 million, respectively.

On January 31, 2012, the Company awarded Restricted Stock Grants for 31,000 shares of common stock at a fair market value of approximately $2.2 million to certain members of the Board of Directors for services rendered in 2011. One-third of the shares of restricted common stock covered by these awards vests on each of December 31, 2012, December 31, 2013, and December 31, 2014.

On January 31, 2012, the Company awarded Restricted Stock Grants for 60,332 shares of common stock to certain members of senior management of the Company. These Restricted Stock Grants will vest on December 31, 2012. The fair market value of these Restricted Stock Grants was approximately $4.2 million as of the date of grant and is recorded as a compensation expense and paid in capital over the vesting period.

20

Table of Contents

Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

Note 11 – Long-Term Cash Incentive Plan

On May 11, 2010, the Company’s Board of Directors approved a Long-Term Cash Incentive Plan (the “2010 LTIP”) to provide a long-term cash bonus opportunity to certain members of the Company’s management. Such Board approval was upon recommendation by the Company’s Compensation, Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee (the “Committee”). The total cumulative payment for all participants (the “Eligible Payment”) is based upon certain performance conditions being met.

The Committee has responsibility for administering the 2010 LTIP and may use its reasonable discretion to adjust the performance criteria or Eligible Payments to take into account the impact of any major or unforeseen transaction or events. The Company’s executive officers are not participants in the 2010 LTIP. The Eligible Payment will be paid in cash upon completion of the Company’s annual audit for the 2012 fiscal year and upon satisfaction of the vesting conditions as outlined in the 2010 LTIP and, including employer costs, is currently estimated to be approximately $2.9 million. As of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the Company had accrued compensation expense of approximately $2.1 million and $1.8 million, respectively, for the 2010 LTIP including approximately $0.3 million and $1.1 million, respectively, in the three months ended March 31, 2012 and year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company is accounting for the LTIPs 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.

Note 12 – Commitments and Contingencies

California Rent Control Litigation

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:

City of San Rafael

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.

21

Table of Contents

Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

Note 12 – Commitments and Contingencies (continued)

The Company’s constitutional claims against the City were tried in a bench trial during April 2007. On April 17, 2009, the Court issued its Order for Entry of Judgment in the Company’s favor (the “April 2009 Order”). On June 10, 2009, the Court ordered the City to pay the Company net fees and costs of approximately $2.1 million. On June 30, 2009, as anticipated by the April 2009 Order, the Court entered final judgment that gradually phased out the City’s site rent regulation scheme that the Court found unconstitutional. Pursuant to the final judgment, existing residents of the Company’s Property in San Rafael will be able to continue to pay site rent as if the Ordinance were to remain in effect for a period of ten years, enforcement of the Ordinance was immediately enjoined with respect to new residents of the Property, and the Ordinance will expire entirely ten years from the June 30, 2009 date of judgment.

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.

City of Santee

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 case on the ground that the tenant association’s case was moot in light of the result in the City’s case. On November 6, 2008, the Court granted the Company’s motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend. The tenant association appealed. In June 2010, the Court of Appeal remanded the case for further proceedings. On remand, on December 12, 2011, the Court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment and denied the tenant association’s motion for summary judgment. On January 9, 2012, the Court entered judgment in favor of the Company, specifying that the tenant association shall recover nothing. On January 26, 2012, the Court set March 30, 2012 as the date for hearing the Company’s motion for attorneys’ fees and the tenant associations’ motion to reduce the Company’s claim for costs. On March 26, 2012, the tenant association filed a notice of appeal. On April 11, 2012, the tenant association agreed to dismiss its appeal in exchange for the Company’s agreement to dismiss its claims for attorneys’ fees and other costs. The parties are in the process of memorializing that agreement.

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.

22

Table of Contents

Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

Note 12 – Commitments and Contingencies (continued)

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. A hearing date on that motion has been set for May 7, 2012. In addition, on February 1, 2012, the Company also filed in state court a petition for a 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.

Colony Park

On December 1, 2006, a group of tenants at the Company’s Colony Park Property in Ceres, California filed a complaint in the California Superior Court for Stanislaus County alleging that the Company had failed to properly maintain the Property and had improperly reduced the services provided to the tenants, among other allegations. The Company answered the complaint by denying all material allegations and filed a counterclaim for declaratory relief and damages. The case proceeded in Superior Court because the Company’s motion to compel arbitration was denied and the denial was upheld on appeal. Trial of the case began on July 27, 2010. After just over three months of trial in which the plaintiffs asked the jury to award a total of approximately $6.8 million in damages, the jury rendered verdicts awarding a total of less than $44,000 to six out of the 72 plaintiffs, and awarding nothing to the other 66 plaintiffs. The plaintiff’s who were awarded nothing filed a motion for a new trial or alternatively for judgment notwithstanding the jury’s verdict, which the Court denied on February 14, 2011. All but 3 of the 66 plaintiffs to whom the jury awarded nothing have appealed, and the appeal is in the briefing stage.

By orders entered on December 14, 2011, the Court awarded the Company approximately $2.0 million in attorneys’ fees and other costs jointly and severally against the plaintiffs to whom the jury awarded nothing, and awarded no attorneys’ fees or costs to either side with respect to the six plaintiffs to whom the jury awarded less than $44,000. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal from the approximately $2.0 million award to the Company of attorneys’ fees and other costs.

California Hawaiian

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 arbitration and stay the proceedings, to dismiss the case, and to strike portions of the complaint. By order dated October 8, 2009, the Court granted the Company’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the court proceedings pending the outcome of the arbitration. The plaintiffs filed with the Court of Appeal a petition for a writ seeking to overturn the trial court’s arbitration and stay orders. On May 10, 2011, the Court of Appeal granted the petition and ordered the trial court to vacate its order compelling arbitration and to restore the matter to its litigation calendar for further proceedings. On May 24, 2011, the Company filed a petition for rehearing requesting the Court of Appeal to reconsider its May 10, 2011 decision. On June 8, 2011, the Court of Appeal denied the petition for rehearing. On June 16, 2011, the Company filed with the California Supreme Court a petition for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision. On August 17, 2011, the California Supreme Court denied the petition for review. Discovery in the case is proceeding. The Company believes that the allegations in the complaint are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend the litigation.

23

Table of Contents

Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

Note 12 – Commitments and Contingencies (continued)

Hurricane Claim Litigation

On June 22, 2007, the Company filed suit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (Case No. 07CH16548), against its insurance carriers, Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Essex Insurance Company, Lexington Insurance Company and Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company, regarding a coverage dispute arising from losses suffered by the Company as a result of hurricanes that occurred in Florida in 2004 and 2005. The Company also brought claims against Aon Risk Services, Inc. of Illinois (“Aon”), the Company’s former insurance broker, regarding the procurement of appropriate insurance coverage for the Company. The Company is seeking declaratory relief establishing the coverage obligations of its carriers, as well as a judgment for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unfair settlement practices and, as to Aon, for failure to provide ordinary care in the selling and procuring of insurance. The claims involved in this action are approximately $11 million.

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 Company has entered settlements of its claims with certain of the insurers and also received additional payments from certain of the insurers since filing the lawsuit, collectively totaling approximately $7.4 million.

California and Washington Wage Claim Class Actions

On October 16, 2008, the Company was served with a class action lawsuit in California state court filed by a single named plaintiff. The suit alleges that, at the time the Company acquired the assets of Privileged Access, LP and its affiliates (“PA”), the Company and other named defendants willfully failed to pay former California employees of PA who became employees of the Company all of the wages they earned during their employment with PA, including accrued vacation time. The suit also alleges that the Company improperly “stripped” those employees of their seniority. The suit asserts claims for alleged violation of the California Labor Code; alleged violation of the California Business & Professions Code and for alleged unfair business practices; alleged breach of contract; alleged breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; and for alleged unjust enrichment. The original complaint sought, among other relief, compensatory and statutory damages; restitution; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; attorney’s fees, expenses and costs; penalties; and exemplary and punitive damages. The complaint did not specify a dollar amount sought. The Court granted in part without leave to amend and in part with leave to amend the Company’s motions seeking dismissal of the plaintiff’s original complaint and various amended complaints. Discovery proceeded on the remaining claims in the third amended complaint. On February 15, 2011, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion for class certification. On June 22, 2011, the Court determined the content of the class notice.

24

Table of Contents

Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

Note 12 – Commitments and Contingencies (continued)

On December 16, 2008, the Company was served with a class action lawsuit in Washington state court filed by a single named plaintiff, represented by the same counsel as the plaintiff in the California class action. The complaint asserts on behalf of a putative class of Washington employees of PA who became employees of the Company substantially similar allegations as are alleged in the California class action. The Company moved to dismiss the complaint. On April 3, 2009, the court dismissed: (1) the first cause of action, which alleged a claim under the Washington Labor Code for failure to pay accrued vacation time; (2) the second cause of action, which alleged a claim under the Washington Labor Code for unpaid wages on termination; (3) the third cause of action, which alleged a claim under the Washington Labor Code for payment of wages less than entitled; and (4) the fourth cause of action, which alleged a claim under the Washington Consumer Protection Act. The court did not dismiss the fifth cause of action for breach of contract, the sixth cause of action for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; or the seventh cause of action for unjust enrichment. On May 22, 2009, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment on the causes of action not previously dismissed, which was denied. With leave of court, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, the material allegations of which the Company denied in an answer filed on September 11, 2009. On July 30, 2010, the named plaintiff died as a result of an unrelated accident.

On November 22, 2011, the parties agreed to a settlement, which remains subject to court approval and other conditions, the principal terms of which are that, without admitting any liability, the Company would pay $0.5 million in cash, would provide one week of vacation to the vacation balance of any class member who on August 13, 2008 had at least five years of service with a PA affiliate (the cost of which to the Company would be approximately $0.1 million), and would receive in exchange a full release of all claims, including claims for attorneys’ fees and costs, in both the California and Washington Class Actions.

Membership Class Action

On July 29, 2011, the Company was served with a class action lawsuit in California state court filed by two named plaintiffs, who are husband and wife. Among other allegations, the suit alleges that the plaintiffs purchased a membership in the Company’s Thousand Trails network of campgrounds and paid annual dues; that they were unable to make a reservation to utilize one of the campgrounds because, they were told, their membership did not permit them to utilize that particular campground; that the Company failed to comply with the written disclosure requirements of various states’ membership camping statutes; that the Company misrepresented that it provides a money-back guaranty; and that the Company misrepresented that the campgrounds or portions of the campgrounds would be limited to use by members.

Allegedly on behalf of “between 100,000 and 200,000” putative class members, the suit asserts claims for alleged violation of: (1) the California Civil Code §§ 1812.300, et seq.; (2) the Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 32-2198, et seq.; (3) Chapter 222 of 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.

On August 19, 2011, the Company filed an answer generally denying the allegations of the complaint, and asserting affirmative defenses. On August 23, 2011, the Company removed the case from the California state court to the federal district court in San Jose. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

25

Table of Contents

Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

Note 12 – Commitments and Contingencies (continued)

Other

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

On May 31, 2011, the Company’s operating partnership entered into purchase and other agreements (the “Purchase Agreements”) to acquire a portfolio of 75 manufactured home communities and one RV resort (the “Acquisition Properties”) containing 31,167 sites on approximately 6,500 acres located in 16 states (primarily located in Florida and the northeastern region of the United States) and certain manufactured homes and loans secured by manufactured homes located at the Acquisition Properties which the Company refers to as the “Home Related Assets” for a stated purchase price of $1.43 billion (the “Acquisition”). For the three months ended March 31, 2012, revenues for the 75 Acquisition Properties, included in the Consolidated Statements of Income and Comprehensive Income for the Company were approximately $41.9 million.

During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company closed on 75 of the Acquisition Properties and certain Home Related Assets associated with such 75 Acquisition Properties for a purchase price of approximately $1.5 billion. The Company funded the purchase price of this closing with (i) the issuance of 1,708,276 shares of its common stock, to the seller with an aggregate value of approximately $111 million, (ii) the issuance of 1,740,000 shares of Series B Preferred Stock to the seller with an aggregate value of approximately $113 million, (iii) the assumption of mortgage debt secured by 35 Acquisition Properties with an aggregate value of approximately $548 million, (iv) the net proceeds of approximately $344 million, net of offering costs, from a common stock offering of 6,037,500 shares, (v) approximately $200 million of cash from the Term Loan the Company closed on July 1, 2011, and (vi) approximately $200 million of cash from new secured financings originated during the third quarter of 2011. The assumed mortgage debt has stated interest rates ranging from 4.65% to 8.87% per annum and matures from dates ranging from 2012 to 2023.

26

Table of Contents

Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

Note 13 – Acquisitions (continued)

The Company is in the process of allocating the purchase price and has engaged a third-party to assist with its allocation for the Acquisition. The following table summarizes the preliminary estimated fair value of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed in the Acquisition for the period ended March 31, 2012, which we determined using level two and level three inputs (amounts in thousands). The fair value is a preliminary estimate and may be adjusted within one-year of the Acquisition in accordance with FASB ASC 805 and is not expected to have a material impact on the consolidated financial statements.

The following methods and assumptions were used to estimate the fair value of each class of asset acquired and liability assumed in the Acquisition.

Land – Market approach based on similar, but not identical, transactions in the market. Adjustments to comparable sales based on both the quantitative and qualitative data.

Depreciable property – Cost approach based on market comparable data to replace adjusted for local variations, inflation and other factors.

Manufactured homes – Sales comparison approach based on market prices for similar homes adjusted for differences in age or size. Manufactured homes are included on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets in buildings and other depreciable property.

In-place leases – Lease in place was determined via a combination of estimates of market rental rates and expense reimbursement levels as well as an estimate of the length of time required to replace each lease.

Notes receivable – Income approach based on discounted cash flows discounting contractual cash flows at a market rate adjusted based on particular notes’ or note holders’ down payment, FICO score and delinquency status.

Below market ground leases – Value of asset (below market lease) based on contract rent and option price against market rent and land value. Market rent determined applying a reasonable rate of return to the value of the land as if owned. Land value is estimated and then inflated until it is anticipated that the option will be exercised. Below market ground leases are included on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets in escrow deposits and other assets.

Mortgage notes payable – Income approach based on discounted cash flows comparing contractual cash flows to cash flows of identical debt discounted based on market rates.

27

Table of Contents

Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

Note 13 – Acquisitions (continued)

The following unaudited pro forma consolidated results of operations assumes that the Acquisition for the 75 Acquisition Properties and related debt and equity issuances had occurred on January 1, 2011. The unaudited pro forma results of operations are based upon historical financial statements. The unaudited pro forma results do not purport to represent what the actual results of operations of the Company would have been, nor do they purport to predict the results of operations of future periods.

Note 14 – Reportable Segments

Operating segments are defined as components of an entity for which separate financial information is available that is evaluated regularly by the chief operating decision maker. The chief operating decision maker evaluates and assesses performance on a monthly basis. Segment operating performance is measured on Net Operating Income (“NOI”). NOI is defined as total operations revenues less total operations expenses. Segments are assessed before interest income, depreciation and amortization of in-place leases.

The Company has two reportable segments which are the Property Operations and Home Sales and Rentals Operations segments. The Property Operations segment owns and operates land lease Properties and the Home Sales and Rentals Operations segment purchases, sells and leases homes at the Properties.

All revenues are from external customers and there is no customer who contributed 10% or more of the Company’s total revenues during the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011.

28

Table of Contents

Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

Note 14 – Reportable Segments (continued)

The following tables summarize the Company’s segment financial information (amounts in thousands):

Three Months Ended March 31, 2012