North Carolina Eviction Attorney Fees 2025: Landlords No Longer Need to Be the Prevailing Party
by Platuni | 06 Oct, 2026 | 5 mins read
Platuni
06 October, 2026
5 mins read
1. Why the prevailing-party requirement mattered before this change
Under the prior version of the statute, a landlord's ability to recover lease-based attorney fees in an eviction case was tied to being the case's prevailing party, meaning a landlord who settled or whose case resolved short of a final favorable ruling could lose the fee-recovery benefit entirely.
[Cite: N.C. Gen. Stat. 42-46(i), as amended by S.L. 2025-52 and S.L. 2025-54]
That requirement created a real strategic complication: a landlord weighing whether to settle an eviction case had to factor in the loss of fee recovery as a cost of settling, which this change removes from the calculation.
2. What actually changed about when fees can be recovered
The amended statute allows lease-based attorney-fee recovery without requiring the landlord to have prevailed in the underlying case.
[Cite: N.C. Gen. Stat. 42-46(i), as amended by S.L. 2025-52 and S.L. 2025-54]
A landlord whose eviction case resolves through a settlement, a dismissal, or another non-final-ruling outcome can now potentially recover the lease-based fee under circumstances where the old prevailing-party rule would have barred it.
3. Why the 15% cap remains unchanged
The amendment addresses the prevailing-party condition specifically; it doesn't raise or remove the existing 15% cap on lease-based attorney fees.
[Cite: N.C. Gen. Stat. 42-46(i), as amended by S.L. 2025-52 and S.L. 2025-54]
A landlord recovering attorney fees under this provision still can't exceed 15% of the amount owed, regardless of how the case resolved; the change expands when the fee can apply, not how large it can be.
4. Why 2 separate bills touching the same provision creates a reconciliation question
Session Law 2025-52, Section 3 (Senate Bill 690) and Session Law 2025-54, Section 12.4 (House Bill 620) both amended the same code section, 42-46(i), with S.L. 2025-52 approved around July 2025 and S.L. 2025-54 approved specifically on July 2, 2025.
[Cite: S.L. 2025-52 s. 3; S.L. 2025-54 s. 12.4]
When 2 bills amend the identical statutory provision in close succession, the final, reconciled codified text, not either bill read on its own, is what actually governs; a landlord or attorney relying on just one of the 2 session laws risks missing how the General Assembly's official codification process resolved any overlap between them.
5. Why checking the current codified text matters more than either bill individually
Because this is an overlapping-amendment situation, the practical compliance step is confirming the currently codified version of 42-46(i), as published by the North Carolina General Assembly, rather than treating either S.L. 2025-52 or S.L. 2025-54 as the complete and final word.
[Cite: N.C. Gen. Stat. 42-46(i), as amended by S.L. 2025-52 and S.L. 2025-54]
A property manager handling eviction filings should have counsel verify the current statutory language directly before relying on a fee-recovery clause in active litigation, given this reconciliation step.
6. Why this change doesn't create a fee right where none existed before
This amendment modifies when an existing, lease-based attorney-fee clause can be enforced; it doesn't grant landlords a new, independent statutory right to recover fees absent such a clause.
[Cite: N.C. Gen. Stat. 42-46(i), as amended by S.L. 2025-52 and S.L. 2025-54]
A landlord whose lease doesn't include an attorney-fee provision at all gets no benefit from this change; the underlying lease language authorizing fee recovery still has to exist for the 15% cap and the relaxed prevailing-party rule to apply.
7. Why this matters specifically for settled or dismissed eviction cases
Since fee recovery no longer hinges on a final favorable ruling, a landlord evaluating whether to settle an eviction case can now factor potential fee recovery into that decision differently than before.
[Cite: N.C. Gen. Stat. 42-46(i), as amended by S.L. 2025-52 and S.L. 2025-54]
A landlord who previously avoided settlement specifically to preserve fee-recovery eligibility should revisit that strategy, since the prevailing-party condition that drove it has been removed.
8. Why lease templates with attorney-fee clauses should be reviewed, not rewritten
This change affects how an existing lease-based attorney-fee clause is enforced in court; it doesn't require landlords to rewrite their lease language to take advantage of the new rule, since the underlying clause authorizing fee recovery typically doesn't reference the prevailing-party condition directly.
[Cite: N.C. Gen. Stat. 42-46(i), as amended by S.L. 2025-52 and S.L. 2025-54]
A landlord with a standard 15%-cap attorney-fee clause already in their lease doesn't need a new lease provision to benefit from this change; the statutory condition for enforcing that clause is what shifted, not the clause itself.
9. Why the effective date applies based on when the case or lease period falls
Both session laws affecting this provision took effect July 2, 2025, meaning the relaxed prevailing-party standard applies to eviction proceedings and fee recovery from that date forward.
[Cite: S.L. 2025-52 s. 3; S.L. 2025-54 s. 12.4]
A landlord with an eviction case that was already fully resolved before July 2, 2025 under the old prevailing-party standard isn't able to revisit that outcome; the practical effect applies going forward from the effective date.
10. Why this is worth tracking alongside other 2025 North Carolina landlord-tenant changes
This attorney-fee amendment is one of several North Carolina landlord-tenant statutory changes enacted in the 2025 legislative session, underscoring that a landlord's compliance review for this period needs to cover more than just this single provision.
[Cite: N.C. Gen. Stat. 42-46(i), as amended by S.L. 2025-52 and S.L. 2025-54]
A property manager updating eviction procedures for mid-2025 changes should treat this fee-recovery amendment as one piece of a broader compliance check rather than an isolated update.
11. What property managers should do now
The practical starting point is confirming the current codified text of 42-46(i) directly, given the 2 overlapping session laws, rather than relying on either bill's standalone language when calculating or asserting a fee-recovery claim.
For any pending or future eviction case involving a lease-based attorney-fee clause, factoring in that a settlement or non-final resolution no longer forecloses fee recovery changes the cost-benefit calculation around whether to settle, compared to the prior rule.
Frequently asked questions
When did this change to North Carolina's eviction attorney-fee rule take effect?
July 2, 2025, through 2 session laws amending the same statutory provision.
Does this raise the cap on lease-based attorney fees?
No. The fee remains capped at 15% of the amount owed; what changed is when that fee can be recovered.
Why were there 2 separate laws affecting the same provision?
Session Law 2025-52 and Session Law 2025-54 both amended North Carolina General Statutes 42-46(i) around the same time; the currently codified, reconciled text controls over either bill read alone.
Does a landlord need a lease clause to use this rule?
Yes. This change affects enforcement of an existing lease-based attorney-fee provision; it doesn't create a fee-recovery right where the lease has no such clause.
Does this apply to eviction cases that settled before July 2, 2025?
No. The change applies to fee recovery from the effective date forward; cases fully resolved before that date under the old rule aren't revisited.
What should a landlord do given the overlapping legislation?
Confirm the current codified version of the statute directly, since 2 separate 2025 session laws touched the same provision in close succession.
Stay Informed
Subscribe to the Platuni B2B Newsletter to receive industry insights,
new feature announcements, and exclusive growth reports