More plaintiffs join Unison HEI class-action lawsuit in Colorado

Two plaintiffs have joined a federal class-action lawsuit in Colorado against home equity investment (HEI) company Unison Agreement Corp. and its affiliates, expanding allegations that the company’s HEI products function as high-cost mortgages despite being marketed as interest-free alternatives.

The amended complaint, filed June 8 by law firm Singleton Schreiber in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, adds Jamie and Alicia Williams of Weld County and Douglas Clayton of Longmont as named plaintiffs alongside original plaintiffs Katharine and Charles Kane of Centennial.

The case builds on a class-action lawsuit initially filed in April 2026 by the Kanes, who allege Unison deceptively marketed its home equity agreements as a simple, debt-free alternative to traditional mortgages. According to that complaint, the Kanes received roughly $87,000 after fees at the start of their agreement, but Unison estimated they could owe as much as $278,618 to terminate the contract as of March 31, 2026.

Unison’s product, similar to competitor offerings, provides homeowners with an upfront cash payment in exchange for a share of the home’s future value. The company has promoted the agreements as involving “no debt, no interest, no monthly payments” while describing itself as a “partner” that shares in a home’s gains and losses.

The lawsuit argues these claims are misleading because homeowners are still obligated to repay the company, typically through a large lump-sum payment when the agreement ends or the home is sold. The amended complaint alleges the new plaintiffs experienced similar outcomes.

“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,” Elizabeth Aniskevich, senior counsel at Singleton Schreiber, said in a statement. “This amended complaint shows that what happened to the Kanes is a reflection of how Unison operates, rather than an isolated incident, happening to hundreds of Colorado homeowners right now.”

Unison did not respond to HousingWire‘s request for comment at the time of publication.

According to the amended complaint, the Williamses entered into an agreement with Unison in 2019 as they sought funds to help cover business expenses. They say they received $30,861 of a $64,600 advance after Unison required them to use a portion of the funds to pay down their primary mortgage.

The couple has since moved to Adams County after Jamie Williams accepted a job nearly two hours from their Weld County home and listed the property for sale. They are awaiting a final payoff amount and are concerned about their ability to purchase another home, according to the filing.

Meanwhile, Clayton — a 66-year-old middle school custodian from Longmont — initially sought a home equity line of credit but instead entered into a Unison HEI agreement, the complaint alleges. Out of a $63,750 advance, Clayton received $28,294 after more than half of the funds were directed toward debts selected by the company. The lawsuit notes that the agreement will not terminate until Clayton is 94 years old.

The amended complaint also includes accounts from other Colorado homeowners. These include a disabled U.S. Army veteran on a fixed income who allegedly faces an effective interest rate ranging from 13% to 19.2%, and a firefighter who inherited responsibility for a Unison agreement after his father died of pancreatic cancer at age 62.

Broader scrutiny of HEI products

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, the Colorado Uniform Consumer Credit Code, and Colorado laws governing forward and reverse mortgages. According to the complaint, the Colorado Division of Real Estate has stated that home equity agreements, such as those offered by Unison, may qualify as residential mortgages that require licensure, and the plaintiffs contend Unison does not hold the required license.

“Unison also engages in a variety of practices during marketing, signing, and servicing of the agreement that keep homeowners in the dark when it comes to the true nature of the Unison product, in violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act,” the amended complaint reads.

The original complaint also alleged that Unison structured agreements to maximize its returns while limiting its own risk. This includes discounting a home’s initial value, requiring homeowners to pay all property-related costs during the contract term and retaining control over the appraisal process used to determine the home’s final value.

The plaintiffs argued that these practices can leave homeowners with little remaining equity after a sale despite years of ownership.

The Colorado case is one of several legal challenges facing Unison and the broader home equity investment industry. A separate lawsuit filed earlier this year in California alleges the company uses equity-sharing contracts that function as unlicensed, high-interest mortgages disguised as investment partnerships.

In another case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year in Olson v. Unison that the company’s product functioned as a reverse mortgage under Washington state law, and that the company engaged in deceptive marketing practices, although the case was later settled.