Case Background
In a recent ruling, a three-judge panel found that plaintiffs Charles Boyd Olson and Janine Olson had valid consumer protection claims against Unison. The panel remanded the case for further proceedings, stating that Unison’s 2019 agreement with the homeowners constituted a “consumer credit obligation” under Washington state law regulating reverse mortgages.
Unison had argued that the couple was not expected to repay anything under the agreement. However, the panel noted that a consumer credit obligation could qualify as a reverse mortgage even if the repayment was contingent on future events such as shared appreciation or equity.
During the lower court case in 2024, Unison’s attorney Jeremy Creelan argued that a credit obligation was not a loan, emphasizing that there was no repayment obligation on the part of the consumer. The panel disagreed, emphasizing that the arrangement put Unison in a position akin to a nonrecourse obligation to receive a percentage of the home’s equity.
The panel also found that Unison had violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act by misleadingly marketing the agreement as not involving any debt, loan, or interest. The Olsons, along with Seattle resident Maggie Colin, had entered into Unison equity sharing agreements in 2019 under the belief that it was not a loan.
Both sets of plaintiffs faced financial challenges and sought to access the equity in their homes without monthly payments or interest. However, they later discovered limitations on selling or refinancing their properties under the agreement, leading to the legal action against Unison.
HousingWire‘s Reverse Mortgage Daily attempted to reach out to Unison for comment but did not receive an immediate response.