Summary:
Judge Louise Flanagan ruled on two key post-certification motions in this putative class action concerning alleged abusive debt collection practices targeting North Carolina homeowners’ associations (HOAs).
Lewis originally filed suit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the North Carolina Collection Agency Act (NCCAA), and the North Carolina Debt Collection Act (NCDCA), alleging that Equity Experts engaged in improper lien filings, foreclosure threats, and excessive collection fees against homeowners with delinquent HOA dues. After the court certified two classes — homeowners who received a “Notice of Lien” or a “Notice of Intent to Foreclose” and paid within 90 days — the litigation entered a contentious discovery phase, with both sides battling over the production of lien communications, fee details, and procedural manuals.
Plaintiff sought to amend her complaint to align with newly uncovered discovery, while the defendant moved for reconsideration of the class certification order, particularly objecting to the court’s sua sponte modification of the class definitions.
Judge Flanagan granted the motion to amend, finding the plaintiff had shown diligence in seeking amendment after learning of relevant discovery materials post-deadline. The court emphasized the complexities of discovery across hundreds of homeowner accounts and noted the plaintiff’s success on prior motions to compel — signaling that her pursuit of additional claims wasn’t mere delay or gamesmanship.
On the motion for reconsideration, the court partly agreed, clarifying the class definitions to impose a 90-day limit for payments made after receiving the lien or foreclosure notice (tightening the causal chain for standing purposes) but rejected the defendant’s bid to narrow the class further or impose constraints on the types of payments.
Importantly, the court reaffirmed that the predominant issues — whether the standardized lien and foreclosure notices misrepresented the legal status or inflated fees — were suitable for class-wide adjudication. It found that numerical thresholds (over 40 class members) and common factual patterns supported class treatment despite the defendant’s insistence on individualized defenses.
For previous decisions:
E.D.N.C.: Lewis v. EquityExperts.org- Excessive Fees illegal under FDCPA
E.D.N.C.: Lewis v. Equityexperts.org II- Class
Commentary:
This ruling carries several noteworthy implications for consumer protection practitioners, especially those focused on HOA-related debt collection. First, the court’s willingness to allow class amendments after discovery fights underscores the importance of aggressive, diligent discovery strategies in consumer class actions. Plaintiffs’ counsel here successfully leveraged depositions and motions to compel to pry loose critical evidence, persuading the court that amendment was justified even months after the scheduling order deadline.
Second, the 90-day payment window imposed on the class definitions is a significant tightening — emphasizing the need for plaintiffs to establish a plausible causal connection between the allegedly deceptive notices and any monetary harm. This echoes Fourth Circuit Article III standing jurisprudence (e.g., Fernandez v. RentGrow), reinforcing that mere receipt of a bad letter isn’t enough: there must be concrete harm, like a payment traceable to the violation.
Third, the court’s rejection of arguments about individual account differences (like COVID delays, unique waivers, or payment plans) reflects the judiciary’s comfort with certifying consumer classes where standardized practices or form documents drive the key liability questions. This holds lessons for both sides: defendants can’t evade class treatment just by pointing to account-level noise, and plaintiffs should focus certification efforts on the common practices and representations underlying their claims.
Finally, the decision foreshadows a continued battle over damages measurement — particularly whether the allegedly inflated or unauthorized fees can be assessed through class-wide comparison to actual service costs. Practitioners would do well to watch how the court handles this at the dispositive motion stage or trial, as it could shape future fee-based class actions under North Carolina law
The challenge to the collection fees charged — claiming they were inflated, unauthorized, or charged before services were actually rendered. In Chapter 13, trustees and debtor's counsel routinely review creditor fees under § 502(b)(1) (disallowing claims unenforceable under nonbankruptcy law). Practitioners can look to this case to bolster objections to HOA claims where the fee schedules or collection charges exceed what state law allows, especially under the NC Debt Collection Act or the NCCAA.
While Ms. Lewis' HOA, Abbington Ridge Townehomes, does not appear to have any Proofs of Claim filed in Chapter 13 cases, knowing what other HOAs Equity Experts has represented would be helpful to ensure that disbursements are not made on potentially illegal and inappropriate claims in active cases.
With proper attribution, please share this post.
To read a copy of the transcript, please see:
Blog comments