North Carolina Eviction Attorney Fees 2025: Landlords No Longer Need to Be the Prevailing Party

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.