Plaintiffs contend the self-help eviction procedures of defendant are contrary to the law of North Carolina and, therefore, the cоurt erred in denying their motions for summary judgment and in allowing summary judgment for defendant.
They first argue defendant’s agents who carry out the padlocking procedures are “debt collectors” as defined by N.C.G.S. 75-50 (3) and therefore bound by the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 75. We do not decide whether defendant’s agents are “debt collectors” within the meaning of the statute because the record fails to show any violations of Article 2 by them. N.C.G.S. 75-51 (1) prohibits the use оr threat of violence of illegal means to cause harm to any person, his reputation, or his property. *73 Plaintiffs make no allegations оf violence by defendant’s agents and, as will be hereinafter discussed, the padlocking procedures are not illegal. Nor has there been any representation of seizure of property as proscribed by N.C.G.S. 75-51 (6), or threat of illegal action prohibited by N.C.G.S. 75-51 (8).
N.C.G.S. 75-54 (4) and (5) prohibit the use of false rеpresentations in efforts, to collect debts and the use of paper writings that simulate documents authorized or issued by a court or other legal authority. Plaintiffs argue defendant’s use of the words “Legal Notice” on the notice of padlocking violates this statute. We do not agree. The nоtice used by defendant is well within the bounds established in
State v. Watts,
GUILFORD COUNTY PADLOCKED APARTMENT
NORTH CAROLINA LEGAL NOTICE
This apartment has been padlocked for nonpaymеnt of rent. ANYONE ENTERING THE APARTMENT IS A TRESPASSER AND WILL BE PROSECUTED.
The previous resident may regain legal possession of the apartment by immediately paying the past due rent.
The previous resident can recover any personal property left in the apartment by immediately contacting the resident manager.
The notice is clearly not a simulated court notice.
Plaintiffs urge us to find N.C.G.S. 75-1.1 applicable to the facts of this case, relying upon
Love v. Pressley,
Next, plaintiffs argue that paragraph 19 of the lease, the termination provision, is unconscionable and therefore unenforceable as violative of public policy. The law argued by plaintiffs on unconscionable contracts is accurate but has no applicаtion to the facts of plaintiffs’ cases. Here, it is not the padlocking procedures that deprive plaintiffs of a place to live, but their fаilure to pay the rent. Plaintiffs offer no reason for failing to pay their rent. In North Carolina a tenant cannot retain possession of premisеs without paying rent, even to protest alleged wrongful acts of the landlord in providing substandard conditions in the premises.
Thompson v. Shoemaker,
Last, plaintiffs contend the public policy and law of North Carolina prevent remedies of self-help as used by defendant. Obviously, a landlord cannot without judicial process seize and sell a tenant’s personal property to collect delinquent rent.
Dalgleish v. Grandy,
North Carolina has held the changing of locks on a dоor to keep out an occupant is not a forcible entry within the meaning of the criminal laws. For there to be a forcible entry there must be sоme force or violence in excess of a simple trespass.
State v. Leary,
We believe that under the common law of North Carolina when a tenant fails to pay rent and to vacatе leased property, the owner may use peaceful means to regain possession of the property. Upon failure to regain рossession thereby, he may resort to the courts.
Mosseller, supra.
This is in accord with other common law jurisdictions.
See Krasner v. Gurley,
According to many cases, where a landlord is wrongfully held out of possession by an overstaying tenant, he may, when the opportunity presents itself, gain possession of the leased premisеs by peaceable means, and necessity for recourse to legal process exists only where peaceable means fail аnd force would be necessary; thus, where the tenant’s right of possession has terminated, the landlord has the right to re-enter the leased premises peaceably, as where the tenant is absent.
In a case similar to the one
sub judice,
the Missouri Supreme Court in
Chappee v. Lubrite Refining Co.,
In addition, the modern policy of diverting conflicts away from the courts supports lawful self-help remedies. This theory, utilizing arbitration, “citizen courts,” referees, traffic offense commissions, debt-counselling services, tax conferences, and other non-court methods of resolving disputes, recognizes that the courts cannot resolve every dispute between persons or between persons and the state. Proper and peaceful self-help remedies by landlords have a place in this scheme. Where a dispute can be properly resolved in a peaceful manner, one is not required to sеek the services of the courts. Here, plaintiffs do not deny that they were delinquent in their rent payments and that defendant was entitled to possession of the premises. They only insist defendant could not use peaceful self-help to regain possession of the premises and that he must resort to the courts for this purpose. Under the facts of this case, we reject plaintiffs argument.
The court properly denied plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment and properly granted summary judgment for defendant.
Kessing v. Mortgage Corp.
Affirmed.