MV Realty Lawsuit, Multiple States Win Big as Courts Order $18M+ in Penalties and Liens Removed From 13,000+ Homes 2026
As of February 2026, MV Realty has been ordered to pay over $18 million in penalties, restitution, and damages across multiple states following coordinated lawsuits by state attorneys general. The Florida-based real estate company faces final judgments in Florida requiring $3 million payment by June 30, 2026, or enforcement of the full $18 million penalty. North Carolina secured a January 2026 summary judgment permanently barring MV Realty from enforcing its 40-year “Homeowner Benefit Agreements” and requiring lien removal from over 2,000 properties.
New Jersey reached a $2.8 million settlement in October 2025 with $1.3 million in restitution for homeowners who paid early termination fees. Combined, these legal victories have freed over 13,000 homeowners from predatory liens and contracts that trapped them in unconscionable real estate agreements for up to 40 years.
What the MV Realty Lawsuits Involve and Who Filed Them
MV Realty PBC, LLC and its principals—Amanda Zachman, Antony Mitchell, and David Manchester—face lawsuits filed by attorneys general in at least 14 states including Florida, North Carolina, New Jersey, California, Illinois, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Missouri, Georgia, and Indiana. Each state sued MV Realty for violations of consumer protection laws, deceptive trade practices acts, and telemarketing regulations.
The lawsuits allege MV Realty targeted financially vulnerable homeowners during the COVID-19 pandemic with deceptive offers of “free” cash payments ranging from $300 to $3,000. In exchange for these small payments, homeowners unknowingly signed 40-year exclusive listing agreements called “Homeowner Benefit Agreements” that gave MV Realty the right to list their homes for 3% to 6% commission if they ever sold. MV Realty also recorded liens or “memorandums” on homeowners’ properties without clearly disclosing this would happen.
The agreements contained hidden termination fees requiring homeowners to pay 3% to 6% of their home’s appraised value to cancel the contract. These fees could total tens of thousands of dollars. The liens prevented homeowners from selling, refinancing, or transferring property to heirs without paying MV Realty—even if the company never provided any real estate services.
January 2026 North Carolina Summary Judgment Victory
On January 22, 2026, North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson announced a major victory when the court granted summary judgment against MV Realty. The ruling permanently bars MV Realty from enforcing any provisions of its Homeowner Benefit Agreements in North Carolina, including collecting early termination fees and recording liens or clouds on property titles.
The court found MV Realty violated North Carolina’s Consumer Protection Act and Telephone Solicitation Act by making nearly 150,000 calls to numbers on the Do Not Call Registry and placing over 340,000 robocalls to North Carolina residents. More than 2,000 North Carolina homeowners were trapped in these agreements. The summary judgment provides finality and relief, ensuring MV Realty cannot enforce these contracts or collect fees from affected homeowners.
North Carolina also passed the Unfair Real Estate Agreements Act in 2023, which prohibits long-term real estate service agreements like MV Realty’s contracts. This legislation was a direct response to MV Realty’s predatory practices.
December 2025 Florida Final Judgment and $18M Penalty
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced a final judgment against MV Realty in December 2025 requiring the company to remove liens from over 9,000 Florida homes and make a $3 million payment by June 30, 2026. If MV Realty fails to comply with this payment deadline, the state can immediately collect the full $18 million penalty assessed in the case.
The judgment also imposes a 10-year injunction against MV Realty’s principals prohibiting them from conducting consumer-facing real estate activities in Florida, creating assets secured by residential real property, or operating any business engaging in consumer-facing telemarketing in Florida. The court found MV Realty’s actions unconscionable under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Florida’s lawsuit revealed MV Realty pressured homeowners into signing contracts with 40-year liens requiring minimum 3% payments even when homes were lost to foreclosure. MV Realty falsely told consumers they would pay nothing until they decided to sell their homes, but buried steep payment obligations in fine print that triggered even when consumers didn’t choose to sell.
What You Must Know About Consumer Protection and Real Estate Fraud
How “Unconscionable” Contract Terms Get Struck Down
Courts in multiple states found MV Realty’s contracts “unconscionable”—a legal term meaning agreements so one-sided and unfair that no reasonable person would agree to them if they understood the terms. Unconscionability has two elements: procedural unconscionability (how the contract was formed) and substantive unconscionability (the terms themselves).
MV Realty’s contracts met both. Procedurally, the company used high-pressure sales tactics, sent third-party notaries to homes with contracts in small font and confusing legal jargon, and gave homeowners no time to review before signing. Substantively, the 40-year terms, hidden fees, and liens that bound even future heirs were grossly unfair.
When courts find contracts unconscionable, they can void them entirely or strike specific provisions. In MV Realty cases, courts voided the entire agreements and ordered all liens removed. This demonstrates how consumer fraud lawsuits like jennifer-shah-lawsuit protect vulnerable consumers from predatory business practices.
Why Multiple States Coordinated Legal Action
MV Realty operated in 33 states nationwide, requiring coordinated multistate enforcement. When companies engage in widespread deceptive practices across state lines, attorneys general often share information, evidence, and legal strategies. This coordination maximizes consumer protection while reducing duplicative investigation costs.
The MV Realty lawsuits demonstrate effective multistate enforcement. Florida, North Carolina, and New Jersey secured major victories in 2025-2026, setting precedents other states can use. Some states like California and Pennsylvania obtained preliminary injunctions in 2024 blocking MV Realty from enforcing contracts during litigation. Others like Illinois, Minnesota, and Missouri filed lawsuits still pending as of February 2026.
What to Do Next If You Signed an MV Realty Agreement
Where to Find Court Documents and Case Status
Official court documents for MV Realty lawsuits are available through state court websites. Florida’s case was filed in the 13th Judicial Circuit Court. North Carolina’s case is in state court. California’s lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. Federal cases, if any, can be accessed through PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) at pacer.uscourts.gov.
MV Realty filed for bankruptcy on September 22, 2023, which may affect enforcement of judgments and settlements. Homeowners should monitor the bankruptcy proceedings to understand how it impacts their rights to restitution and lien removal.
If your state hasn’t filed suit or you haven’t received relief, contact your state attorney general’s consumer protection division to report your situation. You may also consult an attorney about options for challenging the contract’s enforceability under state consumer protection laws, especially if you’re dealing with issues related to real estate broker fair housing violations or other predatory real estate practices.
Where to Find Court Documents and Case Status
Official court documents for MV Realty lawsuits are available through state court websites. Florida’s case was filed in the 13th Judicial Circuit Court. North Carolina’s case is in state court. California’s lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. Federal cases, if any, can be accessed through PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) at pacer.uscourts.gov.
MV Realty filed for bankruptcy on September 22, 2023, which may affect enforcement of judgments and settlements. Homeowners should monitor the bankruptcy proceedings to understand how it impacts their rights to restitution and lien removal.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is MV Realty and what did the company do?
MV Realty is a Florida-based real estate company that targeted financially vulnerable homeowners with deceptive offers of small cash payments ($300-$3,000) in exchange for signing 40-year exclusive listing agreements. The company placed liens on properties without clear disclosure and charged homeowners 3-6% of their home’s value as “early termination fees” to cancel contracts or sell their homes.
What states sued MV Realty as of February 2026?
At least 14 states filed lawsuits against MV Realty including Florida, North Carolina, New Jersey, California, Illinois, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Missouri, Georgia, Indiana, and others. Florida, North Carolina, and New Jersey secured final judgments or settlements as of February 2026, while other states’ cases remain pending.
What happened in the North Carolina lawsuit in January 2026?
On January 22, 2026, a North Carolina court granted summary judgment against MV Realty, permanently barring the company from enforcing any provisions of Homeowner Benefit Agreements including collecting termination fees or recording liens. The ruling protects over 2,000 North Carolina homeowners and found MV Realty violated state consumer protection and telemarketing laws.
How much money must MV Realty pay in the Florida case?
Florida’s December 2025 final judgment requires MV Realty to pay $3 million by June 30, 2026. If MV Realty fails to make this payment on time, Florida can immediately collect the full $18 million penalty. The company must also remove liens from over 9,000 Florida homes.
What relief did New Jersey homeowners receive?
New Jersey’s October 2025 settlement required MV Realty to pay $2.8 million total including $1,344,122 in restitution to fully reimburse 140 homeowners who paid early termination fees ranging from $575 to $42,000. MV Realty was also assessed a $1.5 million civil penalty and must terminate all liens on New Jersey properties.
Can MV Realty’s principals be held personally liable?
Yes. Multiple state lawsuits named MV Realty principals Amanda Zachman, Antony Mitchell, and David Manchester as individual defendants. Florida’s judgment imposes 10-year injunctions against these individuals prohibiting them from conducting consumer-facing real estate activities, creating assets secured by residential property, or operating telemarketing businesses in Florida.
Disclaimer: This article provides legal information about MV Realty lawsuits but does not constitute legal advice for specific situations.
Next Steps: If you signed a Homeowner Benefit Agreement with MV Realty, contact your state attorney general’s consumer protection division and consult a real estate attorney to understand your rights and available relief under state court orders.
Stay informed, stay protected. — AllAboutLawyer.com
Last Updated: February 2, 2026
About the Author
Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah