While this decision is, on its face, a fairly ordinary residential rental dispute—replete with mold allegations, maintenance requests, and implied-warranty skirmishing—the part that should actually catch the attention of consumer and bankruptcy attorneys is the Court’s treatment of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act and its companion Debt Collection Act provisions. Strip away the habitability noise, and what remains is a clear and instructive appellate holding: a technically incorrect debt demand, standing alone, is not actionable under Chapter 75 without proof of actual injury.
That theme runs quietly but consistently through the opinion, and it is where the case does its real work for consumer-side practitioners .
The Backdrop (Briefly)
The tenant vacated his apartment and sued the landlord over alleged habitability issues. The landlord counterclaimed for unpaid rent and fees, initially asserting the tenant owed $9,339.21. At trial, the landlord conceded that figure was overstated because it included rent during a renovation period when the unit could not have been re-rented. The correct amount was $7,251.21, which is exactly what the trial court awarded.
The tenant appealed across the board—but critically did not challenge the trial court’s findings of fact, a mistake that narrowed the appeal to questions of law almost immediately.
The Debt Collection Act Claim: Error Without Consequence
For consumer and bankruptcy attorneys, the key issue is the tenant’s claim under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-54(4), which prohibits falsely representing the character, extent, or amount of a debt.
Importantly, the Court of Appeals did not say the landlord’s conduct was acceptable. It acknowledged that the landlord should not have represented the higher amount once it was clear the rent could not lawfully be charged. That concession matters—and future litigants should not gloss over it.
But acknowledgment of a misstatement is not the same thing as liability.
To prevail under the North Carolina Debt Collection Act, the plaintiff must still satisfy the familiar Chapter 75 framework, including proximate injury. On that point, the tenant’s case failed completely.
The Court emphasized:
-
The tenant never paid the overstated amount.
-
The tenant did not rely on the incorrect figure.
-
The tenant believed he owed nothing and stopped paying rent altogether.
-
There was no evidence that the difference between $9,339.21 and $7,251.21 caused any specific, identifiable harm.
Generalized assertions that the tenant’s credit was harmed were not enough. The Court noted the absence of evidence tying any credit impact to the overstatement, as opposed to the undisputed fact of nonpayment itself.
Wrong number, corrected before judgment, no injury—no Chapter 75 claim.
Why This Holding Matters Beyond Landlord-Tenant Law
This is the part bankruptcy and consumer lawyers should underline.
The opinion reinforces a trend that shows up repeatedly in Chapter 75 and FDCPA-adjacent litigation: technical violations are not self-executing damages triggers. North Carolina courts continue to insist on proof that the statutory violation actually mattered.
For bankruptcy practitioners, the parallels are obvious:
-
overstated proofs of claim,
-
inflated pre-petition demand letters,
-
incorrect payoff figures,
-
sloppy post-default accounting.
This case signals that while those errors may be improper—and may need to be corrected—they will not automatically support Chapter 75 liability without evidence of real, causally connected harm.
The Rest of the Opinion (Why It Fades into the Background)
The habitability, constructive eviction, and UDTPA claims all fell quickly because the tenant failed to challenge the trial court’s factual findings. Once those findings were binding, the appellate court had little choice but to affirm.
Those sections are less doctrinally interesting and largely fact-bound. They matter to landlord-tenant practitioners, but they are not where this case earns its citation value.
Bottom Line
Horne is not a retreat from consumer protection law. It is a reminder that consumer protection statutes still require proof.
A debt can be misstated and still be non-actionable. A collection error can exist without damages. And in North Carolina, Chapter 75 remains a powerful tool—but only when the plaintiff can show that the unfair act actually caused injury.
For consumer and bankruptcy attorneys, that is the real takeaway—and the reason this otherwise routine rental dispute deserves a closer read.
To read a copy of the transcript, please see:
Blog comments