House Bill 267 would create a new automatic expungement process for certain North Carolina summary ejectment records, which are the court records associated with eviction proceedings. For cases that end in voluntary dismissal before an order for possession is entered, the clerk of superior court would be required to expunge the records automatically, without any petition or hearing, 30 days after the case is resolved. The bill also allows defendants in certain other resolved eviction cases to seek expungement by petition, including cases filed before October 1, 2025, and cases where the defendant ultimately prevailed on the merits.
For cases in which the plaintiff obtained judgment on the merits, the bill creates a separate path to expungement after a three-year waiting period, provided the defendant can show housing stabilization. The court may consider evidence such as consistent rent or mortgage payments and an affidavit that no additional eviction or foreclosure actions were filed during that period. The Administrative Office of the Courts would be required to create standardized petition forms and make them available by September 30, 2025.
The bill would add a new G.S. 42-36.4 to Chapter 42 of the North Carolina General Statutes, changing how certain eviction-related court records are retained and removed from court files. It would impose mandatory duties on clerks of superior court to expunge qualifying summary ejectment records automatically in some cases, while also establishing a petition-based process for other cases and directing the Administrative Office of the Courts to develop forms. The measure affects landlords, tenants, courts, and the public availability of eviction records, and it could reduce the long-term collateral consequences of eviction filings for tenants whose cases were dismissed or resolved favorably, or who later demonstrate housing stability.
The available context suggests the bill is generally tenant-protective and likely intended to reduce barriers to housing caused by eviction records. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided material, there is no documented debate or formal vote history to indicate broader support or opposition. The bill’s structure, especially the automatic expungement provisions and the housing-stabilization pathway, indicates a policy preference for limiting the public persistence of certain eviction records.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the scope of automatic expungement, the treatment of cases where the landlord prevailed, and the three-year waiting period with a housing-stabilization showing. Landlords and court administrators may object to the administrative burden, loss of record visibility, or the possibility that expungement could make it harder to assess rental risk. Tenant advocates would likely support the measure but may still scrutinize whether the bill goes far enough, especially because some cases require a petition and a waiting period rather than automatic relief. No specific objections or supporters are documented in the provided committee materials.