I lent on a lease option deal once and I am still not sure I understood what I actually held

The two attorneys gave you different answers because they were probably both right about different things, and that gap is the actual problem worth naming.

A deed of trust gives you a lien on the property. When a lease option agreement is also recorded, the tenant buyer has what courts sometimes recognize as equitable interest, meaning they have a claim to the property's value or title if conditions are met, even though they do not hold title yet. That second attorney's concern was real: in some jurisdictions a recorded option agreement means the tenant buyer gets notice of any foreclosure action and potentially standing to respond to it, which is what stretches the timeline. Whether that actually delays you four months or six depends on the judge, the county, and how the option agreement is drafted, specifically whether it subordinates the tenant buyer's interest to your lien.

That word subordinates is the one to focus on. If the option agreement contains a subordination clause saying the tenant buyer's interest sits behind yours, your position is cleaner. If it does not, you are carrying the ambiguity you felt on the Greensboro deal, now in Burlington.

This is squarely a licensed attorney question, and I want to be direct: the right person here is a North Carolina real estate litigator who has actually run a foreclosure on a lease option property in Alamance or Guilford County. Not a transactional attorney who reviews closings. Someone who has stood in the courtroom.

One thing worth confirming with that attorney: whether a recorded subordination agreement from the tenant buyer, obtained before or at closing, would have resolved the exposure on the first deal and whether you can still get one on Burlington now.

What does the Burlington option agreement say about priority of interests?

The assumption doing the most work in your position is that a recorded deed of trust gives you the same enforcement path you would have on a conventional purchase-money loan. It mostly does, but the recorded option agreement is the complication, and your second attorney named the actual mechanism: a tenant buyer with recorded equitable interest has a colorable argument that they are a party in interest to any sale of the asset securing your lien. That does not necessarily block foreclosure, but it can require you to join them as a respondent, and in some jurisdictions a court will want to hear whether extinguishing the option is equitable before it clears your sale. That is where the four-to-six month variance comes from. It is not a uniform rule, it is a judicial discretion question, and that is what makes it uncomfortable.

The piece you did not mention: who originated the lease option, and was your loan documented with that agreement in hand before you funded? If the lease option predated your deed of trust and was already recorded, your lien is subordinate in time to the equitable interest, which is the worse position. If you funded first and the option recorded after, the priority argument runs differently. That sequence matters more than the LTV in a contested foreclosure.

What you actually need on the Burlington deal is a real estate litigation attorney, not a transactions attorney, in Alamance County specifically, because the question is not whether your documents are correct. The question is what a Guilford or Alamance judge does in practice when a tenant buyer contests a foreclosure sale. That answer lives in local case history, not in the instrument itself. Confirm in writing with that attorney what your joinder exposure looks like before this loan extends past its term.

On the Burlington deal: what is the option exercise window relative to your loan maturity, and have you confirmed the tenant buyer is current on the underlying lease?