Colorado Couple Sues Unison Over Home Equity Agreement

A Colorado couple, Katharine and Charles Kane, filed a proposed federal class action against Unison Agreement Corp. on April 6, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, claiming the company’s home equity sharing agreements are disguised high-cost mortgage loans. The Colorado Unison home equity agreement lawsuit asks the court to declare the contracts are loans subject to state mortgage and credit laws, and to void them.¹

What the Kanes Signed and What They Now Owe

In 2018, the Kanes responded to a flier for Unison’s equity sharing program. They received roughly $87,956 in exchange for granting Unison a 70% stake in the future appreciation of their home, which was appraised at $523,000.¹ The agreement runs 30 years. There are no monthly payments and no interest charged along the way. The full amount comes due when the homeowner sells, buys Unison out, or hits the end of the term.²

According to the complaint, a Unison sales representative described the product as an “interest-free” loan with “no payments,” while the contract itself was presented as an “option contract” involving a “partnership.” The paperwork ran nearly 100 pages, with dense formulas and cross-references the Kanes say made it impossible to understand their actual obligations.³

By March 2026, Unison estimated the Kanes would owe between $178,038 and $278,618 to exit the agreement, depending on the sale price of the home. At a sale price of $790,000, the company’s 70% share of the appreciation would come to more than $278,000 on what started as an $87,956 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 is that the product functions as a consumer loan or mortgage, not the “option contract” or “investment” Unison calls it, and that the label lets the company bypass the licensing, disclosure, and interest rate rules that apply to Colorado lenders.¹

The specific allegations include:

Unison markets the product as “interest-free” and “debt-free” when, the suit says, the homeowner is required to repay the advance plus a substantial share of appreciation in a single lump sum.⁵
The company describes the arrangement as a partnership sharing gains and losses, but the homeowner bears all the costs of ownership (taxes, insurance, maintenance) while Unison extracts a large share of any appreciation.³
Unison discounts the original appraised value, controls the appraisal process, and loads costs and fees onto the homeowner, all of which increase its eventual payout.¹
Because the contract is structured as an option, the Kanes say Unison never provided disclosures like the Annual Percentage Rate that federal and state lending laws require.³

Who the Class Covers and Where the Case Stands

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. Singleton Schreiber, the firm representing the Kanes, estimates the class could cover 300 or more agreements.¹

An amended complaint filed on June 11, 2026, added more Colorado homeowners as plaintiffs. Senior Counsel Elizabeth Aniskevich of Singleton Schreiber said that “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.

Colorado Regulators Already Call These Agreements Loans

In January 2026, before the Kanes filed suit, the Colorado Board of Real Estate adopted a position statement classifying home equity contracts as loans rather than investments, citing an “expectation of homeowner repayment.” The board said 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 central argument in the lawsuit and could help the plaintiffs show Unison was operating as an unlicensed lender.

How Other Courts Have Treated Unison’s Product

Colorado isn’t the first courtroom to look at this question, and recent rulings have gone against Unison’s framing.

In a separate Colorado bankruptcy case, Judge Michael E. Romero denied Unison’s motion to dismiss on July 30, 2025, finding that debtor Deborah Dee Stone had plausibly alleged the product was a loan requiring repayment, not an option. The court let claims proceed for unconscionability, unfair and deceptive practices, violations of Colorado mortgage and credit laws, and usury.⁸⁹

On August 7, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a Washington state case, Olson v. Unison, that a Unison agreement was a “nonrecourse consumer credit obligation” (essentially a shared-appreciation reverse mortgage) 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, and the outcome has not been reported.¹⁰

In the Eastern District of New York, Weingot v. Unison survived the company’s motion for summary judgment in September 2025, with the court finding genuine disputes over whether Unison’s marketing was misleading. A newer case in the same district, Coffin v. Unison Agreement Corp., had an initial conference scheduled for July 2026.¹¹¹⁰

In the District of Columbia, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the AARP Foundation, and Singleton Schreiber sued Unison in February 2026 under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act, alleging the company operates as an unlicensed mortgage lender.¹² A separate individual suit was brought on behalf of 77-year-old D.C. resident Lilly Evans, who received nearly $57,000 for 70% of the equity in her home, then valued at $227,500, and reportedly now faces foreclosure because the agreement prevents her from refinancing.¹³

If You Signed a Unison Agreement in Colorado

If you entered into a Unison HomeOwner or HomeBuyer Agreement in Colorado, you likely fall within the proposed class as currently defined, and you don’t need to do anything right now to preserve that status; a federal court has not yet decided whether to certify the class. The lawsuit asks the court to void the agreements, but no such order has been issued, and the contracts remain enforceable in the meantime. If you’re thinking about selling, refinancing, or buying out your agreement, the payout formulas and appraisal mechanics the complaint describes are the pieces to review closely with a Colorado attorney, and the state Board of Real Estate’s January 2026 position statement is worth bringing into that conversation.

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
Justia. Coffin v. Unison Agreement Corp. Et Al.
12
AARP. Lawsuit Alleges Deceptive Home Equity Investments Strip Homeowners of Equity
13
Street Sense Media. Predatory Practices Target Low-Income Older Homeowners in D.C.