Colorado Couple Accuses Home Investment Firm of Deceptive Practices

Lawsuit alleges Unison violated lending laws and misrepresented equity-sharing agreement as an interest-free loan

Apr. 11, 2026 at 12:51am

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A photorealistic studio still life featuring a stack of legal documents, a calculator, and a house-shaped paperweight on a clean, monochromatic background, symbolizing the complex financial and legal issues surrounding home equity investment agreements.A conceptual still life highlighting the legal complexities and potential pitfalls of home equity investment agreements.Centennial Today

A Colorado couple has filed a federal lawsuit against home investment company Unison, alleging the firm violated lending laws and engaged in deceptive practices when it offered them an 'Equity Sharing Agreement' in 2018. The Kanes say they were led to believe the $87,000 they received was an interest-free loan, but they now face potentially owing Unison over $278,000 if they sell their home.

Why it matters

This case highlights the growing legal challenges facing companies that offer home equity investment products, which consumer advocates argue should be regulated as loans. The Kanes' lawsuit is part of a broader trend of homeowners accusing these firms of misleading marketing and failing to properly disclose the terms and risks.

The details

According to the lawsuit, the Kanes received $87,000 from Unison in 2018 in exchange for the company securing a 70% stake in their Centennial home. The couple says they were told this was an interest-free loan, but the contract they signed was actually an 'option agreement' that gives Unison the right to claim up to 70% of the home's future appreciation. If the Kanes sell their home today for $790,000, Unison could be entitled to over $278,000 of the profits.

  • The Kanes received $87,000 from Unison in 2018.
  • Nearly 8 years later, the Kanes have realized they could owe Unison over $278,000 if they sell their home.

The players

Chuck and Kate Kane

A Colorado couple who filed a federal lawsuit against home investment company Unison, alleging deceptive practices.

Unison

A home investment company that offers 'Equity Sharing Agreements' to homeowners, which the Kanes' lawsuit alleges should be regulated as loans.

Elizabeth Aniskevich

The Kanes' attorney, a senior counsel at Singleton Schrieber who argues these equity-sharing agreements are unfair and deceptive under Colorado's consumer protection laws.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“What he explained was that we can give you the amount of money that you want, basically, and it was interest-free and no payments.”

— Chuck Kane

“We want to retire. We want to be able to have this cushion, this safety net, to see us through the rest of our lives by downsizing and this is our investment. And now we don't have it.”

— Kate Kane

“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 of this agreement, so you have a better estimate of what you would owe at the end.”

— Elizabeth Aniskevich, Senior Counsel, Singleton Schrieber

What’s next

The judge in the case will decide whether to grant the Kanes' request for class action status, which could allow other homeowners who entered similar agreements with Unison to join the lawsuit.

The takeaway

This case highlights the need for stronger consumer protections around home equity investment products, which consumer advocates argue should be regulated like traditional loans to ensure homeowners fully understand the terms and risks before signing.