USCA4 Appeal: 22-2106 Doc: 50 Filed: 03/14/2025 Pg: 1 of 13
PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-2106
SUSAN K. CARPENTER, trustee for H. Joe King, Jr. Revocable Trust, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM DOUGLAS MANAGEMENT, INC.; NEXTLEVEL ASSOCIATION SOLUTIONS, INC., d/b/a HomeWiseDocs.com,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, District Judge. (3:21-cv-00019-RJC-DCK)
Argued: October 25, 2023 Decided: March 14, 2025
Before RUSHING and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Rushing wrote the opinion, in which Judge Heytens and Senior Judge Keenan joined.
ARGUED: Lucy Noble Inman, MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Philip M. Oliss, JONES DAY, Cleveland, Ohio; Jeffrey Brandt Kuykendal, MCANGUS, GOUDELOCK, & COURIE, LLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Mark R. Sigmon, Scott C. Harris, Patrick M. Wallace, Jeremy R. Williams, MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Brett USCA4 Appeal: 22-2106 Doc: 50 Filed: 03/14/2025 Pg: 2 of 13
W. Bell, Alexander W. Prunka, JONES DAY, Cleveland, Ohio; Steven A. Meckler, Frederick M. Thurman, Jr., SHUMAKER LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee NextLevel Association Solutions, Inc.
2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-2106 Doc: 50 Filed: 03/14/2025 Pg: 3 of 13
RUSHING, Circuit Judge:
Susan Carpenter sold two properties governed by homeowners’ associations. As
part of proving clear title to the properties before sale, Carpenter obtained a “statement of
unpaid assessments” for each one. Carpenter now contends the fees she paid for those
statements were excessive under North Carolina law. She sued in a purported class action,
and the district court dismissed her complaint for failure to state a claim. We affirm.
I.
In April 2020, Carpenter, as trustee for the H. Joe King, Jr. Revocable Trust, sold
two properties in North Carolina. 1 Because each property belonged to a homeowners’
association, Carpenter’s attorneys ordered a statement of unpaid assessments for each, to
show that the property owner did not owe outstanding fees to the association.
The homeowners’ associations for both properties were managed by William
Douglas Management, Inc. William Douglas uses a platform provided by NextLevel
Association Solutions, Inc., d/b/a HomeWiseDocs.com, to accept requests for real estate
closing letters, which include statements of unpaid assessments.
A statement of unpaid assessments for the first property Carpenter sold cost her
$175: $150 to William Douglas and $25 to HomeWise. The closing letter from William
Douglas was dated March 2, 2020, and the sale occurred April 2, 2020. For the second
property, William Douglas charged Carpenter $215 for what the invoice described as a
1 Because this case comes to us on appeal from a motion to dismiss, we take the factual allegations in the complaint as true. Kashdan v. George Mason Univ., 70 F.4th 694, 700 (4th Cir. 2023). 3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-2106 Doc: 50 Filed: 03/14/2025 Pg: 4 of 13
“Closing Letter and Documents Package (Includes Transfer Fee),” a fee to update that
information for a rescheduled closing, and a rush fee. J.A. 57. HomeWise charged $40,
allocated among the same three components. The invoice was dated March 27, 2020, and
the sale occurred April 3, 2020.
Finding these fees excessive, Carpenter sued William Douglas and HomeWise in a
class action complaint in North Carolina state court. She alleged that her experience is
typical of sellers who own property subject to homeowners’ associations. Lenders, closing
attorneys, and buyers require a statement of unpaid assessments showing a zero balance
before closing the sale. Most homeowners’ associations contract with property
management companies like William Douglas to track assessments and to generate the
statements. By using the HomeWise software, Carpenter alleged, “it simply took [William
Douglas] a couple of keystrokes and a matter of minutes to confirm that [the properties
were] not delinquent on [their] assessments.” J.A. 26. According to Carpenter, William
Douglas and HomeWise charged homeowners excessive “transfer fees” in violation of a
North Carolina law forbidding “transfer fee covenants.” See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 39A-3. She
also alleged violations of the State’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, see id.
§ 75-1.1, and Debt Collection Act, id. § 75-50, et seq., as well as negligent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy.
HomeWise removed the case to federal court, and both defendants moved to dismiss
the complaint for failure to state a claim. The district court dismissed the complaint in full
because the fees Carpenter described in her complaint were not transfer fees as defined by
4 USCA4 Appeal: 22-2106 Doc: 50 Filed: 03/14/2025 Pg: 5 of 13
state law and the companies were not deceptive or unfair in charging them. Carpenter
appealed, and we have jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
II.
We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a
claim. Holloway v. Maryland, 32 F.4th 293, 298 (4th Cir. 2022); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must “state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
When evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint, we accept the well-pleaded allegations as
true and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. Schilling v. Schmidt Baking
Co., Inc., 876 F.3d 596, 599 (4th Cir. 2017). However, we need not accept unwarranted
inferences or legal conclusions. Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir. 2008).
“Because we are sitting in diversity, our role is to apply the governing state law, or,
if necessary, predict how the [S]tate’s highest court would rule on an unsettled issue.” BP
Prods. N. Am., Inc. v. Stanley, 669 F.3d 184, 188 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks
omitted). When no decision from the State’s highest court provides guidance on a question
of state law, we consult decisions of the State’s intermediate appellate court. Assicurazioni
Generali S.p.A. v. Neil, 160 F.3d 997, 1002 (4th Cir. 1998). We may not decide a question
of state law differently than the State’s intermediate appellate court has done in a decision
directly on point unless we are “‘convinced by other persuasive data that the highest court
of the [S]tate would decide otherwise.’” Id. (quoting West v. AT&T, 311 U.S. 223, 237
(1940)).
5 USCA4 Appeal: 22-2106 Doc: 50 Filed: 03/14/2025 Pg: 6 of 13
A.
We begin with Carpenter’s claim that the fees defendants charged for statements of
unpaid assessments were unlawful transfer fees. “A transfer fee covenant” violates North
Carolina public policy “by impairing the marketability of title to the affected real property”
and imposing “an unreasonable restraint on alienation and transferability of property.”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 39A-1(b). Accordingly, “[a] person who records a transfer fee covenant,
files a lien that purports to secure payment of a transfer fee, or enters into an agreement
imposing a private transfer fee obligation” shall be liable for damages and attorney’s fees.
Id. § 39A-3(b). A transfer fee is “a fee or charge payable upon the transfer of an interest
in real property or payable for the right to make or accept such transfer.” Id. § 39A-2(2).
The statute also lists ten charges that “shall not be considered a ‘transfer fee’ for the
purposes of this Chapter,” including “[a]ny reasonable fee charged for the preparation of
statements of unpaid assessments pursuant to G.S. 47F-3-102(13) or resale certificates or
statements of unpaid assessments pursuant to G.S. 47C-3-102(12).” Id. § 39A-2(2)(h).
The North Carolina Supreme Court has not elucidated the transfer fee statute, but it
has articulated principles of statutory interpretation we must follow. In North Carolina,
“[s]tatutory interpretation properly begins with an examination of the plain words of the
statute.” JVC Enters. LLC v. City of Concord, 855 S.E.2d 158, 161 (N.C. 2021) (internal
quotation marks omitted). “If the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, the court
eschews statutory construction in favor of giving the words their plain and definite
meaning.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
6 USCA4 Appeal: 22-2106 Doc: 50 Filed: 03/14/2025 Pg: 7 of 13
The fees about which Carpenter complains do not satisfy either part of the statutory
definition of “transfer fees.” First, a transfer fee is a fee or charge “payable upon the
transfer of an interest in real property.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 39A-2(2). “Payable” means a
sum of money “that is to be paid.” Payable, Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009). 2 “An
amount may be payable without being due,” id., which means “[i]mmediately enforceable,”
Due, Black’s Law Dictionary; cf. Wing v. Goldman Sachs Trust Co., N.A., 876 S.E.2d 390,
398–399 (N.C. 2022) (consulting Black’s Law Dictionary to define statutory terms). As
the district court correctly explained, documents attached to Carpenter’s complaint show
that the charges for statements of unpaid assessments became a sum of money to be paid,
or “payable,” when those statements were prepared, not “upon the transfer” of the real
property, which occurred later. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 39A-2(2); see Carpenter v. NextLevel
Assoc. Sols., Inc., 632 F. Supp. 3d 672, 677–678 (W.D.N.C. 2022). Carpenter alleges she
paid the fees at the time of closing, as defendants required, but that does not disturb the
district court’s reasoning that the fees “gained the attribute of ‘to be paid’ upon the
preparation of the statements.” Carpenter, 632 F. Supp. 3d at 677. Alternatively,
Carpenter argues—without any supporting authority—that “the transfer of an interest in
real property” is not a single event but includes the entire process of preparing to transfer
real property in advance of the closing date itself. We must reject this atextual construction,
which would expand the statute’s reach far beyond the words the General Assembly
enacted.
The North Carolina General Assembly enacted the transfer fee statute in 2010, so 2
we consult a contemporaneous dictionary. 7 USCA4 Appeal: 22-2106 Doc: 50 Filed: 03/14/2025 Pg: 8 of 13
Second, a fee or charge “payable for the right to make or accept [the] transfer” of
an interest in real property is also a “transfer fee.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 39A-2(2). The fees
here do not qualify because they were to be paid for the statements of unpaid assessments,
not for the right to transfer the property interests. Carpenter contends that, as a practical
matter, she could not sell the properties without obtaining statements of unpaid assessments
because lenders and closing attorneys require them. While the statements may be a
prerequisite for financing and title insurance, defendants’ fees are required to be paid in
exchange for the statements they prepared, not for the right to make or accept the property
transfer. Under the plain language of the statute, then, these charges are not “transfer fees.”
The North Carolina Court of Appeals reached the same conclusion in a recent
unpublished decision. See Fleming v. Cedar Mgmt. Grp., LLC, No. COA21-213, 2022 WL
29786 (N.C. Ct. App. Jan. 4, 2022), review denied, 883 S.E.2d 470 (N.C. 2023). Although
unpublished North Carolina Court of Appeals opinions are not controlling legal authority,
N.C. R. App. Proc. 30(e)(3), they still hold “predictive value” for federal courts interpreting
and applying state law, C.F. Trust, Inc. v. First Flight Ltd., 306 F.3d 126, 136 (4th Cir.
2002). The court in Fleming faced the same question we do here: whether a fee charged
for a statement of unpaid assessments in connection with selling property governed by a
homeowners’ association was a transfer fee under North Carolina law. Fleming, 2022 WL
29786, at *1. We find the state court’s interpretation of the state statute, applied to the
same fact pattern we face, to be an instructive “datum for ascertaining state law.”
Assicurazioni Generali, 160 F.3d at 1002 (internal quotation marks omitted).
8 USCA4 Appeal: 22-2106 Doc: 50 Filed: 03/14/2025 Pg: 9 of 13
Considering a statement of unpaid assessments in Fleming, the North Carolina
Court of Appeals reasoned that “a fee that is payable upon the preparation of such a
statement is not the equivalent of a fee that is ‘payable upon the transfer of an interest in
real property or payable for the right to make or accept such transfer.’” Fleming, 2022 WL
29786, at *3 (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. § 39A-2(2)). The court was unmoved by the
plaintiffs’ argument that such a statement “is often a prerequisite to obtaining title
insurance or financing the purchase of real estate.” Id. As the court explained, “neither”
title insurance nor financing “constitutes the transfer of an interest in real property,” and
paying for a statement necessary to obtain insurance or financing is not the equivalent of
paying for “the right to make or accept such transfer.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Carpenter offers two responses. First, she contends that a statutory “exception”
covering “‘reasonable fee[s]’” for “‘statements of unpaid assessments’” provides
“compelling evidence that the General Assembly viewed such fees for statements as
transfer fees.” Opening Br. 30 (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. § 39A-2(2)(h)). As a reminder,
the statute defines “transfer fee” by first identifying what the term means, see N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 39A-2(2) (“‘Transfer fee’ means . . . .”), and then identifying what it does not mean,
saying “[t]he following shall not be considered a ‘transfer fee,’” followed by ten categories
of excluded charges, among them, “[a]ny reasonable fee charged for the preparation of
statements of unpaid assessments,” id. § 39A-2(2)(h). Carpenter argues that the exclusion
of reasonable fees must mean that unreasonable fees charged for the preparation of
statements of unpaid assessments do qualify as transfer fees under the statute.
9 USCA4 Appeal: 22-2106 Doc: 50 Filed: 03/14/2025 Pg: 10 of 13
Her interpretation is flawed. By identifying ten charges that are not transfer fees,
the statute does not imply that any charges not excluded are transfer fees. Nor does
anything in the definitional statute, considered as a whole, imply that the excluded charges
would qualify as transfer fees if not for the express exclusion. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 39A-
2(2)(a)–(j). As the Fleming court said, Carpenter’s argument “put[s] the cart before the
horse.” 2022 WL 29786, at *2; see also Carpenter, 632 F. Supp. 3d at 679 (rejecting this
argument). The “threshold question” is whether defendants’ charges for statements of
unpaid assessments satisfy the statute’s definition of “transfer fee.” Fleming, 2022 WL
29786, at *2. Because they do not, we need not address whether any statutory exclusion
applies.
This conclusion does not render the exclusions superfluous, as Carpenter contends.
Rather, the exclusionary paragraphs list common charges associated with real estate
transactions that are outside the scope of the statute, irrespective of when they are payable.
For example, a realtor may agree that his commission will become payable only upon
transfer of the property. By listing realtors’ commissions among the charges that are not
transfer fees, the General Assembly clarified that the statute does not apply to such fees
even if they are payable upon transfer. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 39A-2(2)(b). That does not
mean all realtors’ commissions are transfer fees but are excepted by paragraph (b); it means
that such commissions are never transfer fees, even if conditioned upon “the transfer of an
interest in real property.” Id. § 39A-2(2). The same is true for the exclusion of reasonable
fees charged for the preparation of statements of unpaid assessments. Id. § 39A-2(2)(h).
10 USCA4 Appeal: 22-2106 Doc: 50 Filed: 03/14/2025 Pg: 11 of 13
Carpenter’s second response is no more persuasive. She emphasizes that
defendants’ own documentation refers to the charge for a “Closing Letter and Documents
Package” as including a “Transfer Fee.” J.A. 58. Whether that charge qualifies as a
transfer fee within the meaning of North Carolina’s statute, however, is a question of law
for the court. See McLeod v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 444 S.E.2d 487, 490 (N.C. 1994)
(“The proper interpretation of . . . any statute[] presents a question of law.”). And
defendants have not conceded that question in this litigation.
In sum, the fees defendants charged Carpenter to prepare statements of unpaid
assessments are not transfer fees under North Carolina law. 3 Carpenter, therefore, has
failed to allege a violation of the North Carolina law prohibiting transfer fee covenants.
B.
Next, we consider Carpenter’s claim that defendants’ charges for statements of
unpaid assessments violated North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act
(UDTPA). Under the UDTPA, “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting
commerce” are unlawful. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(a). To state a UDTPA claim, a plaintiff
must allege “(1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce, and
(3) which proximately caused injury to plaintiff[].” Walker v. Fleetwood Homes of N.C.,
Inc., 653 S.E.2d 393, 399 (N.C. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A practice is
3 This conclusion also disposes of Carpenter’s declaratory judgment claim, although she does not mention that claim in her Opening Brief and so has waived any challenge to the district court’s dismissal. See Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int’l LLC, 856 F.3d 307, 316 (4th Cir. 2017) (“A party waives an argument by failing to present it in its opening brief . . . .”). 11 USCA4 Appeal: 22-2106 Doc: 50 Filed: 03/14/2025 Pg: 12 of 13
unfair when it offends established public policy as well as when the practice is immoral,
unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.” Bumpers v.
Comm. Bank of N. Va., 747 S.E.2d 220, 228 (N.C. 2013) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Whether an act or practice is unfair or deceptive “is a question of law for the
court.” Gray v. N.C. Ins. Underwriting Ass’n, 529 S.E.2d 676, 681 (N.C. 2000).
As an initial matter, Carpenter’s reliance on the transfer fee statute to support her
UDTPA claim fails, since we have determined the charges are not transfer fees under
Chapter 39A. Carpenter alternatively argues that, even if defendants did not technically
violate the transfer fee statute, their charges nevertheless contravened the public policy
underlying that statute and so violated the UDTPA. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 39A-1(a). We
must reject that argument. The General Assembly specified in Chapter 39A the conduct
that violates the State’s public policy favoring the marketability and transferability of real
property. See id. § 39A-1(b) (“A transfer fee covenant violates this public policy . . . .”).
We have no warrant to override the bounds of the General Assembly’s decision and expand
transfer fee liability by way of the UDTPA.
The remainder of Carpenter’s UDTPA claim is based on allegations that defendants
unfairly leveraged their role in the real estate transactions to charge excessive fees. The
North Carolina Supreme Court has suggested that high prices alone are insufficient to
support a UDTPA claim, although it has left open the possibility that fees could be “so high
as to run afoul” of the statute. Bumpers, 747 S.E.2d at 228–229. In Fleming, the North
Carolina Court of Appeals rejected an excessive pricing UDTPA claim when the plaintiffs
paid $395 for a statement of unpaid assessments. 2022 WL 29786, at *1, *3. Like
12 USCA4 Appeal: 22-2106 Doc: 50 Filed: 03/14/2025 Pg: 13 of 13
Carpenter, the plaintiffs there alleged the fee was “unfair,” bore “no relation to the actual
cost of providing the statements,” and “exceeded the reasonable expectation of
consumers.” Id. at *3 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court regarded these
assertions as “little more than allegations of excessive pricing with insufficient factual
support that the Fee was ‘immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially
injurious to consumers.’” Id. (quoting Bumpers, 747 S.E.2d at 228). So too here.
Carpenter paid less than the Fleming plaintiffs and cannot state a UDTPA claim for
excessive fees. 4 The district court, therefore, rightly dismissed Carpenter’s UDTPA claim.
C.
Carpenter’s remaining claims—unjust enrichment, violation of the North Carolina
Debt Collection Act, negligent misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy—rise or fall with
her transfer fee and UDTPA claims, as she concedes. See Oral Argument at 12:22–12:40;
Opening Br. 64–66. Because Carpenter has failed to state a claim under Chapter 39A or
the UDTPA, her other claims similarly cannot succeed.
AFFIRMED
4 In July 2020, the General Assembly amended the homeowners’ association statute to set a range of reasonable charges for the preparation of statements of unpaid assessments. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 47F-3-102(13a). We observe that the fees defendants charged Carpenter in early 2020 fall within the statutory range. 13