Compliance Analyst

A Colorado couple thought they signed a contact for an interest-free loan. They could owe triple what they initially got. According to a federal lawsuit, the couple received $87,000 in 2018 and if they sold their home today they would owe the company as much as $278,000. CENTENNIAL, Colo. - A Colorado couple filed a federal lawsuit this week, seeking class action status, against a home investment company that owns an option on a significant portion of their Centennial home. In the lawsuit, Chuck and Kate Kane accuse the company Unison of violating several lending and credit laws and violating Colorado's Consumer Protection Act when they offered them a product called an Equity Sharing Agreement, which offers homeowners an upfront payment in exchange for an option to purchase a percentage of their home. Nearly eight years after Unison paid the Kanes $87,000, after fees, for an option on their home, the couple has learned their equity means they could owe that company more than $278,000 from profits of a home sale today. "They offer a product using certain language, consumers enter into that product, and then they discover they didn't get what they thought they got at the outset," Elizabeth Aniskevich, the Kanes' attorney said. Their lawsuit comes as Unison and other companies offering similar products face legal challenges across the country from consumer protection attorneys arguing this type of agreement amounts to a loan, but isn't offered with required disclosures and other consumer protections. "We allege and believe that this product is a credit product or a loan, but even if it were not, the entire way the process unfolds is unfair and deceptive under Colorado's consumer protection statutes," Aniskevitch, senior counsel for Singleton Schrieber, said. How an $87k investment tripled in less than a decade. According to the complaint, the Kanes said they received a flyer from Unison in 2018 advertising the Equity Sharing Agreement. "My husband looked at it and said it sounds like a really good deal, because we had talked about redoing our kitchen, and we want to put our house up for sale so that we can downsize," Kate Kane said. So Chuck Kane said he called the number and spoke to a sales representative by phone. He said he made fast friends with the man who was from Michigan and shared a love of football. Over the course of their three to four phone calls, Kane said he even sent the man a Barry Sanders practice jersey he owned as a thank you for the help. "What he explained was that we can give you the amount of money that you want, basically, and it was interest-free and no payments," Chuck Kane said. The Kanes agreed to the deal. The couple said an appraiser came and valued their home at $523,000. Then a notary arrived with a lengthy contract for them to sign. "We tried our best to understand it, and some of the paperwork at the end, we didn't understand hardly any of it," Chuck Kane said. The agreement shows the company offered the Kanes $91,000 at the time. After closing fees and other costs the couple got a check for a little more than $87,000, according to that contract. The couple said they used it to remodel their kitchen and build a deck in the backyard. But nearly eight years later, they've now realized if they sell their house, they could owe Unison more than $278,000 of their home sale. Here's why: The contract the couple signed is called an option contract - meaning by sending that check to the couple, Unison secured the ability to take a 70% stake in the couple's home. The 30-year agreement gave Unison the option to purchase that stake for a reduced price based on the home's value from that 2018 appraisal. If the couple sells and Unison exercises the option, the company could be entitled to 70% of the home's equity increase. According to a March 31 statement included in the lawsuit, Unison estimates if the home sold today for $790,000, Unison would receive more than $278,000 from the profits of the sale. The Kanes say giving up that amount, which is based on the gross profits from the sale, would eliminate much of their profit. "We want to retire," Kate Kane, 69, said. "We want to be able to have this cushion, this safety net, to see us through the rest of our lives by downsizing and this is our investment. And now we don't have it." Kane said her husband Chuck, 70, has mobility issues and struggles with the stairs. The couple hopes to downsize soon. But they said that potential lost equity means they have to stay put for now. Is it an option or a loan? The Kanes' lawsuit alleges the Equity Sharing Agreement operates more like a consumer loan, mortgage or even a reverse mortgage and should be subject to legal consumer protections required for loans. "The laws, generally speaking, under any of those [types of loans] would require Unison to inform the consumer at the time they sign the agreement, what is the annualized percentage rate of this agreement, so you have a better estimate of what you would owe at the end," Aniskevich said. She called the contracts confusing for homeowners because they include complicated formulas and cross-references. The Kanes' complaint also accuses the company of deceptive marketing. A video on Unison's website sells the product as a partnership between the homeowner and Unison, with both sides sharing in losses and gains. Aniskevich argues the contract impacts the homeowner more than the company - requiring the homeowner to pay for insurance, property taxes and any maintenance or upgrades to the home, banning the homeowner from renting out the home, settling limits on how much debt the homeowner can take out and requiring the homeowner to pay any fees and other obligations involved with a potential home sale. "They're not partners with the homeowner," Aniskevich said. "They're partners with the investors who profit off of the returns from the homeowners." Unison has not yet responded to a request for comment from 9NEWS on the Kanes' litigation, but the company has argued in other proceedings that its product is an option contract - not a loan and since the final amount due depends on the future value of the home, it lacks the certainty required to be considered a loan. In another Colorado case involving one of their contracts, the company argued clients have ample time to review the documents involved in the transaction and their agreements include language encouraging homeowners to seek legal or financial advice before entering into the agreement. Other courts are beginning to weigh in on home equity investments. The National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) reports courts across the country are increasingly questioning these types of investments. The shift gained massive momentum with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's ruling in a different case against Unison, which declared these agreements could plausibly qualify as reverse mortgages under Washington state law. A judge in a bankruptcy case in Weld County denied a request from Unison to dismiss a case where a homeowner argued Unison's agreement was a high-interest loan, ruling the homeowner's argument that the contract was unconscionable was plausible. Some regulators are also taking notice. Prior to the start of the Trump administration, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau warned in an issue spotlight in January of 2025 that home equity contracts tend to be expensive and difficult to understand. Steve Staeger is the consumer investigator at 9NEWS. Anna Hewson is the consumer investigative producer. If you have a tip for Steve On Your Side, send us an email.

Unison faces more legal trouble over allegedly deceptive home equity agreements. by sarah wolak April 10, 2026 01:17 PM. A newly filed class-action lawsuit accuses home equity investment (HEI) company Unison of misleading homeowners and structuring its products in ways that leave customers with far less equity than expected. The complaint, filed April 6 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado by plaintiffs Katharine and Charles Kane, alleges that Unison and affiliated entities deceptively market their home equity agreements as a simple, debt-free alternative to loans. At the heart of the lawsuit, the Kanes are challenging Unison's core product, which provides homeowners with an upfront cash payment in exchange for a share of the home's future value, alleging that they are "trapped" in the agreement. "As of March 31, 2026, Unison estimates the Kanes will owe up to $278,618 to terminate the contract, when they were advanced just over $87,000 after fees at the start of their agreement," the suit says. According to the lawsuit, Unison offers homeowners an upfront cash payment in exchange for a share of the home's future value. The company promotes the product as having "no debt," "no interest" and no monthly payments, while positioning itself as a "partner" that shares in both gains and losses. The plaintiffs argue that these claims are misleading and that the product creates debt. "The Unison transaction is a residential mortgage loan because it provides homeowners an upfront payment that at least most of the time, the homeowner will have to repay to Unison," the suit claims. Unison did not respond to HousingWire's request for comment in time for publication. Singleton Schreiber, a law firm representing the plaintiffs in the case, issued a statement through senior counsel Elizabeth Aniskevich in which it labeled Unison's products as "predatory." "Unison intentionally misled homeowners to avoid the consumer protection, mortgage lending, and credit disclosure laws that exist precisely to protect people like our clients," Aniskevich said. "Homeowners are handed nearly 100 pages of complex documents, often for the first time, at a closing that moves quickly and without any Unison representative present to explain what they are signing. "The promises that drew them in, no debt, no interest, a financial 'partner', all prove to be false when the agreement concludes and a massive repayment bill comes due. These aren't technical violations, they reflect a business model built on keeping borrowers in the dark. We intend to hold Unison accountable and ensure Colorado homeowners get the protections the law guarantees them." The lawsuit contends the agreements function as loans that ultimately require repayment of the initial cash amount plus what amounts to interest, often through a large lump-sum payment at the end of the term. In many cases, the filing alleges, homeowners must sell their homes to satisfy the obligation. "Homeowners will almost certainly be required to repay every penny they receive, plus interest in the form of a significant lump sum balloon payment," the complaint states. The suit also alleges that Unison structures its agreements to maximize its own returns while limiting risk. Among the practices cited are discounting a home's initial value, requiring homeowners to cover all property-related costs during the agreement term, and maintaining control over the appraisal process that determines the home's final value. As a result, the plaintiffs claim, homeowners may walk away from a home sale with little remaining equity despite years of ownership. The complaint seeks class-action status on behalf of similarly situated homeowners and includes claims that the company's practices are deceptive and unfair. The case comes at a time when home equity investment companies are increasingly under scrutiny for what the lawsuit calls "a deceptive" practice. "In recent years, institutional and high-net-worth investors have been seeking a piece of that pie for themselves in ways that are increasingly deceptive and unfair to homeowners," the suit reads. This isn't Unison's first time in the legal hot seat. A separate lawsuit, filed in September in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco, alleges that Unison uses predatory equity-sharing contracts that function as unlicensed, high-interest mortgages disguised as investment partnerships. Lead plaintiff Patricia Gout, an 80-year-old retiree, said she received $97,256 from Unison in 2017 for home repairs and medical expenses but later learned she owed nearly $375,000, an effective interest rate of about 34.5%. Other challenges against the company include a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Olson v. Unison that found its product functioned as a reverse mortgage under Washington state law and involved deceptive marketing practices. Although Unison settled that case in October 2025, it also faces a separate lawsuit from the National Association of Consumer Advocates alleging the company misrepresents its product as a no-debt home equity option. Other companies in the space are under scrutiny as well. Hometap was sued in Massachusetts, where Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell argued the company's product violates state usury laws. Unison, founded in the early 2000s, created its business model to give investors exposure to the U.S. home equity market without requiring them to directly own property. Editor's note: This story was updated with comments from the plaintiffs' attorney. 26 Apr, 10