A three-judge panel remanded the case involving Charles and Janine Olson against Unison for further proceedings, stating valid consumer protection claims exist. The panel found that Unison's 2019 agreement constituted a consumer credit obligation under Washington state law regarding reverse mortgages. The ruling clarified that even if repayment appears contingent, there are obligations tied to shared equity. The panel disagreed with Unison's assertion that no repayment obligation exists and highlighted that the Olsons adequately alleged violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act related to misleading marketing.
The entire structure of the arrangement is designed to put Unison in the same position, and to have the same right to payment, as an unadorned nonrecourse obligation to pay Unison 70% of the home's equity, less $194,250.
The Olsons have a very real set of contingent obligations to make future payments to Unison, even prior to the exercise of the option.
Collection
[
|
...
]