E.D.N.C. (and Jones Cty. Sup. Ct.): Carolina Lease Management, Rent-to-Own Sheds, and the End of the “Executory Contract” Fairy Tale

By Ed Boltz, 30 January, 2026

Summary:

The Bland and Greene class actions against Carolina Lease Management Group, LLC are now fully and finally resolved. Together, they represent one of the more consequential pieces of consumer litigation in North Carolina in recent years — not only because of the millions of dollars recovered and debt cancelled, but because of what they say, loudly and clearly, about how “rent-to-own” contracts actually work in substance, not just in name.

For bankruptcy lawyers, especially those handling Chapter 13 cases, these cases should be required and inspirational reading.

Calling a Sale a Lease Doesn’t Make It One

At the heart of both cases was a simple premise:
You don’t get to avoid consumer-credit laws by calling a retail installment sale a lease.

Carolina Lease Management leased portable storage sheds to North Carolina consumers under standardized “rent-to-own” contracts. The plaintiffs alleged — persuasively enough to drive a global settlement — that these agreements were retail installment sales in disguise, and that CLM:

Failed to comply with North Carolina’s Retail Installment Sales Act (RISA);
Engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices under Chapter 75; and
Used unlawful debt collection practices to collect amounts not legally owed.

This was not about a few bad contracts. It was about uniform documents and uniform practices, applied statewide, to thousands of consumers.

After years of hard-fought litigation in both state and federal court, including an appeal to the Fourth Circuit, the cases settled on a global basis:

$8 million total settlement across the two actions;
Over $600,000 in alleged debt cancelled;
Cash distributions to thousands of class members;
No claims process; and
Zero opt-outs. Zero objections.

That last point matters.

Why This Matters in Consumer Bankruptcy Cases

What makes these cases especially important is what they undercut in bankruptcy court.

Anyone who files consumer cases in North Carolina has seen this move:
A rent-to-own shed creditor files a proof of claim insisting that the contract is an executory lease, not a secured claim, and certainly not unsecured. The implication is always the same — assume it or else.

The Bland / Greene litigation blows a hole straight through that strategy.

If these contracts are retail installment sales, then in bankruptcy:

They are not executory contracts within the meaning of § 365;
The creditor is not a lessor, but a seller or financier;
The claim is subject to § 506 valuation; and
In Chapter 13, the debt is potentially crammable.

That is not an academic distinction. It is the difference between:

Forcing a debtor to cure and maintain an inflated “lease” payment; or
Treating the claim like what it actually is — often a low-value secured claim with a large unsecured tail, or in some cases simply an unsecured claim.

Portable sheds depreciate quickly. Their resale value is often minimal. Once stripped of the “executory lease” label, many of these claims collapse under ordinary Chapter 13 analysis.

Not Just Carolina Lease Management

And this is the point that bankruptcy lawyers should not miss:
This is not just a Carolina Lease Management problem.

The rent-a-shed industry relies on:

Standard form contracts;
Identical “rent-to-own” language;
The same semantic dodge — this is a lease, trust us.

The reasoning that drove these settlements is portable. It applies just as readily to other shed companies, portable building sellers, and rent-to-own personal property creditors operating in North Carolina.

Expect to see these issues raised more often:

Objections to executory-contract treatment;
Challenges to secured status;
Defensive use of RISA, UDTPA, and DCA violations in bankruptcy cases; and
Chapter 13 plans that cram these claims down to reality.

As it should be.

Credit Where It Is Due

This result did not happen because the law was easy or obvious. It happened because of exceptional lawyering.

Adrian Lapas of Goldsboro, along with Charles Delbaum and Jennifer Wagner of the National Consumer Law Center, deserve enormous credit for what they achieved here.

These cases involved:

Novel issues of statutory interpretation;
Years of contested discovery;
Aggressive defense by well-funded defendants;
Appellate risk; and
The very real possibility that consumers would recover nothing if the litigation failed.

Instead, they delivered cash, debt cancellation, and structural change — the kind of result that actually matters in consumers’ lives.

For North Carolina consumers — and for the bankruptcy lawyers who represent them every day — this was consumer advocacy done right.