Colorado Couple Unison Lawsuit: How an $87K Deal Turned Into a $278K Nightmare

Chuck Kane received a flyer in the mail in 2018. It promoted an Equity Sharing Agreement, which allows you to take money out of your house without having to pay interest or make monthly payments. After examining it and finding it appealing, he dialed the number. In the end, he struck up a conversation with a Michigan salesman who was passionate about football. They became so close over the course of three or four phone conversations that Kane thanked him with a Barry Sanders practice jersey. Everything felt friendly and under control. After that, he signed the agreement.

Eight years later, Chuck Kane is seventy years old, has mobility problems that make it harder for him to climb the stairs in his Centennial home, and owes a company called Unison up to $278,000 if he sells the house today—roughly three times what he got when the deal was made. On April 6, 2026, he and his 69-year-old wife Kate filed a federal lawsuit against Unison, requesting class action status and claiming the company violated Colorado’s Consumer Protection Act, lending laws, and a number of federal consumer protections by marketing a product as interest-free when, according to the lawsuit, it is anything but.

Even though the underlying financial product isn’t clear, the complaint’s core is. The Kanes were offered $91,000 by Unison in return for a 70% share in the Centennial home’s future value. The couple received $87,000 after fees and closing costs. They built a deck and renovated the kitchen with it. Their house was valued at $523,000 in the 2018 appraisal. According to Unison, the house would sell for about $790,000 in early 2026. When the conditions of their agreement are applied, Unison’s portion of that appreciation equals more than $278,000. After fulfilling that obligation, the couple’s sale proceeds would be significantly less than they had anticipated. A contract they didn’t fully understand when they signed it has essentially restructured their retirement plan, which was based on downsizing and living off the proceeds.

Key Information: Kane v. Unison

“We tried our best to understand it, and some of the paperwork at the end, we didn’t understand hardly any of it,” Chuck Kane stated. That statement is more significant than it first appears. The lawsuit claims that the closing included almost 100 pages of intricate paperwork. The documents were delivered by a notary. There was no Unison representative in attendance to provide an explanation. The pair signed. They received a check. They acquired a new kitchen. Additionally, they obtained a 30-year option agreement that granted control to a third party over a significant portion of their home’s most valuable financial asset.

The product functions as a residential mortgage loan, according to their lawyer, Elizabeth Aniskevich of Singleton Schreiber, and should be subject to the same consumer disclosure requirements, including the annualized percentage rate that would reveal to a borrower what they are actually paying over time. “The laws, generally speaking, under any of those types of loans would require Unison to inform the consumer at the time they sign the agreement what is the annualized percentage rate,” she stated. A homeowner can’t really compare the price of an equity sharing agreement to that of a reverse mortgage, home equity line of credit, or any other instrument without that figure. The Kanes might have signed anyhow. However, they would have signed with knowledge.

Because option contracts do not have the same disclosure requirements as lending instruments, Unison has argued in other court cases that its product is an option contract rather than a loan. This distinction has legal significance. Additionally, the company has maintained that clients are given enough time to go over documents and are specifically urged to get financial or legal counsel before signing. As it has done in similar cases, Unison did not reply to requests for comment after the Colorado lawsuit was filed. As courts around the nation examine these products and the marketing language surrounding them more closely, it is still unclear whether that distinction—option versus loan—will hold up.

The legal environment has been changing. In a different case, Olson v. Unison, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the company’s product might legitimately be considered a reverse mortgage under Washington state law. In October 2025, Unison reached a settlement in that case. Patricia Gout, an 80-year-old Californian retiree, filed a lawsuit against the business in San Francisco Superior Court, claiming she was given $97,000 in 2017 and now owes almost $375,000, or an implied interest rate of about 34.5 percent. A homeowner’s claim that a Unison contract was unconscionable was deemed plausible by a bankruptcy court judge in Weld County, Colorado, who denied a motion to dismiss. Prior to the current administration, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau cautioned in January 2025 that home equity contracts are typically costly and opaque.

The state attorney general of Massachusetts filed a lawsuit against Hometap, a rival company selling comparable goods, claiming the company’s product broke usury regulations. Over the past few years, there has been an increasing amount of legal pressure on this entire category of financial products, state by state and case by case.

As this develops, there’s something unsettling about the way the product was presented to the Kanes: the cordial phone calls, the football talk, the impression that this was a straightforward agreement between sensible people rather than a complicated financial instrument with substantial long-term obligations. Kate Kane put it simply: “We want to retire. We hope to have this safety net and cushion. And we no longer have it.” This is the human cost that underlies all legal disputes regarding disclosure requirements and option contracts. Due to an agreement they made over the phone eight years ago that seemed like a good deal at the time, two people in their late sixties, one of whom has mobility issues, are unable to downsize their home.