A bipartisan state House bill that aims to prohibit the use of predatory real estate service agreements was fast-tracked through the legislature on Wednesday.

House Bill 422 — the “Unfair Real Estate Agreements Act” — was shelved for more than two months before resurfacing Tuesday in the gatekeeper Senate Rules and Operations committee.

After clearing the committee Wednesday morning, the Senate passed HB 422 by a 45-0 vote and the House by a 117-0 vote.

The bill has been sent to Gov. Roy Cooper, who has 10 days to sign it, veto it or let it become law without his signature.

HB 422’s lead primary sponsor is Rep. Kyle Hall, R-Stokes, who has a portion of Forsyth County in his district and also is a Realtor.

A major focus of the legislation is addressing the business model of MV Realty of Florida, which has been sued by Attorney General Josh Stein for marketing and selling these agreements. Stein is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions, restitution for consumers and other monetary penalties.

According to Stein, his office has received more than 20 complaints about MV Realty, which began doing business across the state in August 2020. The company has signed up more than 2,100 North Carolinians to its “Homeowner Benefit Program” — typically people who are facing financial hardships and are in need of cash.

The legislation, which the state Justice Department helped draft, is supported by AARP, NC Realtors and the NC Real Estate Commission.

The bill summary said the impetus is that “several real estate companies have been using a predatory business model to target seniors and financially insecure homeowners with cold calls, even those on the Do Not Call registry.”

A Justice review of the lending practice determined that in the state’s four largest Multiple Listing Service areas — Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, Greensboro-Winston-Salem and Asheville — there have been more than 2,000 homeowners that signed an agreement with one of these firms since fall 2000.

The companies offer to provide cash payments, typically less than $1,000, to homeowners in exchange for agreeing to exclusively utilize that company’s services to list their property at any time over the next 40 years.

What bill sponsors say is concerning is that the signed contracts include a memorandum that is filed with the county that serves as a lien on the property’s title.

According to the bill, it is “unfair to an owner of residential real estate who enters into such an agreement or to other parties who may become owners of that real estate in the future.”

The bill would prohibit the recording of such agreements “so that the public records will not be clouded by them and provides remedies for owners who are inconvenienced or damaged by the recording of such agreements.”

The bill would declare that such an agreement is unfair if it is effective and binding for more than one year from the effective date of agreement.

The bill would provide consumers with the ability to recover damages, costs and attorney’s fees “that may be proved against the agent, service provider or person named” in the agreement.