Colorado Couple Sues Unison Over Home Equity Agreement

A Colorado couple, Katharine and Charles Kane, filed a proposed class action against Unison Agreement Corp. on April 6, 2026, alleging the company’s home equity sharing agreements are disguised high-cost mortgage loans that skirt state lending laws. The Unison home equity agreement lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, argues the contracts should be voided and treated as the loans the plaintiffs say they really are.¹

What the Kanes Signed, and What They Owe Now

In 2018, the Kanes responded to a flier for Unison’s equity sharing program. They received roughly $87,956 in cash. In exchange, they granted Unison a 70% stake in the future appreciation of their home, then appraised at $523,000.¹ The contract runs 30 years. There are no monthly payments and no interest is charged during the term. The full amount comes due when the homeowner sells, buys Unison out, or reaches the end of the 30-year term.²

The Kanes say a sales representative described the product as an “interest-free” loan with “no payments,” and that the contract itself was framed as an “option contract” involving a “partnership.” They allege the nearly 100 pages of legal paperwork, with dense formulas and cross-references, made it impossible to grasp their actual obligations at signing.³

The numbers now on the table show why the couple sued. As of March 2026, Unison estimated the Kanes would owe between $178,038 and $278,618 to exit, depending on their sale price. If the home sold for $790,000, Unison’s 70% share of the appreciation would top $278,000 on what began as an $87,000 advance.¹

What the Lawsuit Alleges

The complaint accuses Unison of violating Colorado’s Consumer Protection Act, the Colorado Uniform Consumer Credit Code, and the state’s mortgage lending and reverse mortgage laws.⁴ The core argument: Unison’s product works like a consumer loan or mortgage, not the “option contract” or “investment” the company calls it. By labeling it differently, the Kanes say, Unison avoids the licensing, disclosure, and interest rate rules that apply to lenders in Colorado.¹

Specific allegations in the complaint include:

Unison pitched the product as “interest-free” and “debt-free,” when homeowners are in fact required to repay the advance plus a large share of appreciation in a single lump sum.⁵
The company describes the arrangement as a partnership where both sides share gains and losses, yet the homeowner alone carries taxes, insurance, and maintenance while Unison collects a large share of any appreciation.³
Unison discounts the original appraised value, controls the appraisal process, and shifts all fees onto the homeowner, all of which increase its eventual payout.¹
Because the product is structured as an option contract rather than a loan, Unison never provided the Annual Percentage Rate or other disclosures that federal and state lending laws require.³

The lawsuit asks the court to declare the agreements are mortgages or loans subject to state regulation, and to void the contracts.¹

Who the Proposed Class Covers

The proposed class includes all Colorado residents who entered into a Unison HomeOwner or HomeBuyer Agreement since the company began offering its products in the state. Attorneys at Singleton Schreiber, which represents the Kanes, estimate 300 or more similar agreements could be covered.¹

The case is moving. An amended complaint filed on June 11, 2026 added more Colorado homeowners as plaintiffs. Senior Counsel Elizabeth Aniskevich of Singleton Schreiber said “every new plaintiff in this case tells the same story; they trusted Unison’s promise of a simple, interest-free product, and they are now trapped.”⁶ No ruling on class certification or any dispositive motion has been reported. Homeowners who think they may fit the class definition should contact plaintiffs’ counsel to preserve their rights; the file does not report a certified notice process yet.

Colorado Regulators Already Call These Loans

In January 2026, the Colorado Board of Real Estate adopted a position statement classifying home equity contracts as loans rather than investments, on the basis that there is an “expectation of homeowner repayment.” The board stated that anyone taking an application for, offering, or negotiating the terms of such a contract must hold a Colorado mortgage loan originator’s license if the contract meets the state definition of a residential mortgage loan.⁷ That stance lines up with the Kanes’ central theory that Unison was operating as an unlicensed lender.

Courts in Other States Are Reaching Similar Conclusions

The Colorado case is part of a wave. Courts in several jurisdictions have been asked the same question: is Unison’s product an investment or a loan? So far, several have leaned toward “loan.”

Stone v. Real Estate Equity Exchange (Colorado)

In a separate Colorado case, debtor Deborah Dee Stone challenged her Unison agreement in bankruptcy court. On July 30, 2025, Judge Michael E. Romero denied Unison’s motion to dismiss, finding Stone had plausibly alleged the product was a loan that had to be repaid, not an option contract.⁸ The ruling let claims for unconscionability, unfair and deceptive practices, violations of Colorado mortgage and credit laws, and usury proceed.⁹

Olson v. Unison (Ninth Circuit)

In Washington state, the Ninth Circuit ruled on August 7, 2025, that a Unison agreement was a “nonrecourse consumer credit obligation,” essentially a shared-appreciation reverse mortgage, under Washington law rather than a real estate option. The court found the product’s “entire structure” was designed to give the company the same rights as a nonrecourse lender. Unison filed a petition for panel rehearing and en banc review in September 2025; the outcome has not been reported.¹⁰

D.C. and New York

In February 2026, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the AARP Foundation, and Singleton Schreiber filed suit against Unison in D.C. Superior Court, alleging the company violates the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act by operating as an unlicensed mortgage lender.¹¹ A separate individual case was filed on behalf of 77-year-old D.C. resident Lilly Evans, who received nearly $57,000 in exchange for 70% of the equity in her home, then valued at $227,500. Evans reportedly faces foreclosure because the agreement prevents her from refinancing.¹² In the Eastern District of New York, an earlier case, Weingot v. Unison, survived the company’s motion for summary judgment in September 2025, with the court finding genuine disputes of fact over whether Unison’s marketing was misleading.¹⁰

Beyond Unison

The pattern extends to other home equity investment companies. In Massachusetts, Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell sued Hometap Equity Partners in February 2025, alleging its products are unlawful reverse mortgage loans covering more than 500 in-state transactions.¹³ A Massachusetts Superior Court denied Hometap’s motion to dismiss in August 2025, ruling the product is a loan because there is “no substantial risk” the company will lose its principal. In Arizona, a court declined to compel arbitration in a case against Point Digital Finance, finding the arbitration clause unenforceable under the Truth in Lending Act because the product is a credit or mortgage product.¹⁰

What Unison’s Product Looks Like

Unison is a San Francisco-based company that offers equity sharing products letting homeowners access cash in exchange for a share of their home’s future value. Its primary product, the Equity Sharing Agreement, provides up to 15% of a home’s value (capped at $500,000) with a 30-year term and no monthly payments.² As of September 2024, Unison reported originating over 12,000 contracts, and it operates in roughly 25 states and the District of Columbia. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has warned that home equity contracts are generally more expensive than traditional home-secured financing when a home appreciates, with repayment amounts that can reach hundreds of thousands of dollars and rate caps functioning at effective annual interest rates of roughly 19.5% to 22%.¹⁴

1
Denver Post. Colorado Home Equity Agreements Lawsuit
2
Unison. Equity Sharing Agreement
3
9News. Home Equity Loan Contract Lawsuit Investment
4
HousingWire. Unison Colorado HEI Lawsuit
5
HousingWire. Unison Class Action Home Equity
6
Singleton Schreiber. More Plaintiffs Join Unison HEI Class Action Lawsuit in Colorado
7
Colorado Division of Real Estate. Position Statement – Home Equity Contracts
8
FindLaw. In Re: Deborah Dee Stone
9
National Consumer Law Center. Stone v. Real Estate Equity Exchange, Inc. Et Al.
10
National Consumer Law Center. Courts Expose Deception Home Equity Investments
11
AARP. Lawsuit Alleges Deceptive Home Equity Investments Strip Homeowners of Equity
12
Street Sense Media. Predatory Practices Target Low-Income Older Homeowners in D.C.
13
Massachusetts Attorney General. AG Campbell Files Nation-Leading State Enforcement Action Against Home Equity Investment Company
14
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Issue Spotlight: Home Equity Contracts Market Overview