Unison faces more legal trouble over allegedly deceptive home equity agreements

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.

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.

Neither Unison nor the plaintiffs’ legal team responded to HousingWire‘s requests for comment at the time of publication.