NC Court Rules Against Realtor's Predatory Practice

A North Carolina Business Court judge has ruled that MV Realty, a Florida-based real estate company, violated state consumer protection and telemarketing laws through its controversial "Homeowner Benefit Agreement" (HBA) program, granting partial summary judgment to the state attorney general's office.

The Corporate Structure in North Carolina

The lawsuit named three corporate entities as defendants:

• MV Realty PBC, LLC — the Florida-based parent company, founded in 2014, that serves as the sole corporate member of the North Carolina entity and designed the HBA program nationally.

• MV Realty of North Carolina, LLC — a North Carolina limited liability company that held a state real estate broker's license until 2023, when the North Carolina Real Estate Commission permanently revoked it after finding violations of state licensing law.

• MV Brokerage of North Carolina, LLC — a separate North Carolina limited liability company operating alongside the licensed brokerage entity.

Four individuals tied to these entities were also named personally: CEO Antony Mitchell and COO David Manchester of the parent company; Amanda Zachman, the company's founder and an officer of the North Carolina LLC; and Darryl Cook, who served as the North Carolina entity's Broker-in-Charge and Broker-of-Record until the 2023 license revocation and who used his personal residence as the corporate address for the defendant entities.

The Business Model

Beginning in 2020, MV Realty offered North Carolina homeowners cash payments—typically $300 to $5,000—in exchange for a 40-year exclusive right to serve as their listing broker if they ever sold their homes. Roughly 2,100 North Carolina homeowners signed up. The agreements were unusual in several respects: they claimed to bind homeowners' heirs, they were recorded as memoranda with county Registers of Deeds, and they imposed steep penalties—called "Early Termination Fees"—on homeowners who used a different broker.

Three Core Violations

Judge Mark A. Davis's order and opinion, issued in January 2026, found no genuine dispute of material fact on three unfair-trade-practice theories:

1. False claims about covenants running with the land. MV Realty's recorded memoranda asserted that homeowners' obligations were "covenants running with the land," binding future owners. The court held this was false, since the underlying agreement was really a personal-services contract, not a property interest—and Defendants' own counsel conceded at oral argument that the recordings clouded homeowners' titles.

2. Improper lis pendens filings. MV Realty filed at least 24 notices of lis pendens against homeowners it believed had breached their agreements. The court found these filings improper because the underlying lawsuits sought only money damages, not anything affecting title to real property.

3. Unenforceable penalty fees. The court concluded the Early Termination Fees were illegal penalties rather than valid liquidated damages, partly because damages were easily calculable by reference to market value, partly due to the unequal bargaining power between the company and homeowners, and partly because earlier versions of the contract had openly labeled the fee a "penalty."

Telemarketing Violations

The court also granted full summary judgment to the state on claims under North Carolina's Telephone Solicitation Act, finding that MV Realty made roughly 149,983 calls to numbers on the "Do Not Call" Registry and 344,009 robocalls using an automated dialing platform. MV Realty's consent defense failed: the company could produce evidentiary support for consent from only two homeowners despite claiming its process covered hundreds of thousands of contacts.

Individual Liability

The court found each of the four individual defendants personally involved enough in designing, implementing, or enforcing the program to face liability alongside the corporate entities, citing a similar 2024 Florida ruling against the same executives.

What's Next

Defendants are now permanently enjoined from collecting termination fees, filing new memoranda, or filing lis pendens notices tied to the HBA program in North Carolina. The court deferred ruling on restitution and civil penalties.

How to Protect Yourself From Similar Predatory Offers

The MV Realty case is a useful template for spotting predatory "cash for your home equity" schemes. Watch for these warning signs:

• An unusually long or vague commitment. A 40-year exclusive contract is far outside normal real estate practice (a typical listing agreement runs months, not decades). Any offer that locks you into a multi-decade obligation deserves extra scrutiny.

• Upfront cash tied to future restrictions. Be wary of any offer that pays you now in exchange for giving up a choice later — especially a choice as significant as who represents you when you sell your home.

• Language claiming to "run with the land." This is a legal term of art that can bind future owners, not just you. If a contract or recorded document uses this phrase, understand exactly what obligation is being attached to your property — and consider having a real estate attorney review it before signing, not after.

• Something gets recorded with the Register of Deeds. If a company records a document against your property title as part of a deal, ask why. Legitimate liens and mortgages get recorded; personal-services contracts generally should not.

• Pressure at the point of signing. In this case, homeowners often saw the actual contract terms for the first time only when a notary arrived at their door. Never sign something you haven't had time to read and, ideally, have reviewed by an independent professional.

• Penalties framed as "damages." Steep termination fees calculated as a percentage of your home's value function like penalties, even if the contract calls them something else. If breaking free of a deal costs you thousands of dollars, that's a red flag.

• Unsolicited calls, especially if you're on the Do Not Call Registry. If you receive repeated calls or robocalls about a program like this, that alone may indicate a violation of telemarketing law.

If you're concerned about a contract you've already signed:

• Check whether anything has been recorded against your property at your county Register of Deeds office (many offices allow online lookup by owner name).

• Contact a real estate attorney or your state's consumer protection division — many states, including North Carolina, allow you to file a complaint with the Attorney General's office.

• If MV Realty specifically contacted you, note that North Carolina's Attorney General has already established wrongdoing in this case, which may be relevant if you pursue a claim or complaint.