A Centennial couple says a national home-equity investment firm turned a friendly sounding "no-debt" pitch into a six-figure headache that now looms over their retirement plans, according to a new federal lawsuit filed this week.
The complaint accuses Unison, a major player in the home-equity investment space, of selling a product that is advertised as an alternative to traditional borrowing yet allegedly operates like a loan and leaves homeowners staring down a massive payoff. The filing says the Kanes took an advance in 2018 and now face an estimated repayment that could more than double what they initially received.
Court records show the complaint was filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Denver and names Unison Agreement Corp., Unison Investment Management and Real Estate Equity Exchange as defendants, according to Justia Dockets. The plaintiffs, Katharine and Charles Kane of Centennial, are represented by attorney Elizabeth Aniskevich, who in the filing asked the court to certify the case as a class action and requested a jury trial.
As first reported by The Denver Post, the complaint says the Kanes signed an equity-sharing agreement in 2018 that gave Unison a 70% share of their home’s future appreciation in exchange for an initial advance of roughly $87,956. The suit says Unison estimated the couple’s payoff as of March 31 at between $178,038 and $278,618, and argues that the company’s marketing, which promised "no monthly payments" and "no interest," hid what the plaintiffs’ lawyers describe as a high-cost, balloon-style obligation.
What the plaintiffs want
The Kanes are asking the court to treat Unison’s contracts as mortgages or loans, to void their agreements and to certify a class of Colorado homeowners who entered similar deals. The filing estimates that more than 300 contracts in the state could be affected. Their claims allege violations of Colorado’s consumer credit code, the Consumer Protection Act and mortgage-lending statutes, according to the complaint and the court docket.
How Unison markets the product
Unison promotes its flagship Equity Sharing Agreement as a way to turn home equity into cash "without monthly payments or interest." Its website says the firm has worked with thousands of homeowners and helped them access billions in home wealth. Public materials describe two product lines, an appreciation-sharing option with no monthly payments and a hybrid product with modest monthly payments, language that plaintiffs say glosses over the financial risks these agreements can create. See Unison’s description on its website for more on how the firm frames the product.
Where this fits in a wave of suits
The Colorado case lands in the middle of a broader legal fight over so-called home equity investments and shared-appreciation contracts. In recent years, consumer-advocate lawsuits and court rulings in several jurisdictions have increasingly pressed the question of whether these arrangements are really loans or reverse-mortgage-style credit obligations, and judges in multiple cases have allowed those claims to move forward. Reporting and legal tracking of the litigation show Unison has faced similar challenges in Washington, D.C., California and federal bankruptcy proceedings in Colorado. See recent coverage and legal summaries for background on related cases.
Legal implications
If a court ultimately treats these equity-sharing agreements as mortgages or other regulated loans, plaintiffs say the contracts could be voided and homeowners might be released from the payoff structures they now face. That kind of ruling could also trigger licensing, disclosure and reverse-mortgage rules that would significantly change how equity-sharing products are sold and enforced. Consumer-law groups and recent appellate rulings have highlighted those statutory and regulatory questions as central to whether these products are allowed to continue in their current form.
Unison did not immediately respond to requests for comment, and The Denver Post reported that messages were left seeking the company's response. The case is still in its early stages, and further motions, including any response from Unison and scheduling orders, are expected to appear on the public docket in the weeks ahead.
