Hometap and peer shared-appreciation agreement platforms are looking toward legal arbitration that would allow them to privately resolve a series of recently filed lawsuits this summer.
The Boston-based
In a response to the latest complaint filed against it in the federal court for the Central District of California in late June, Hometap claimed that the plaintiff, Marlene Crawford, had specifically waived her right to a lawsuit in signing the initial contract.
"In entering the agreements, Crawford agreed that 'any and all disputes or claims' between her and Hometap that 'have arisen or may arise' would be 'resolved exclusively through final and binding arbitration, rather than a court,'" Hometap's lawyers wrote.
Hometap is also employing the same legal strategy as it faces similar class action lawsuits filed earlier in 2026 in North Carolina and New Jersey.
At the center of the cases against shared-appreciation products, which are also commonly referred to as
"Hometap breaks federal and state lending laws and attempts to avoid their protections by ensnaring homeowners with its complex, confusing, and high-risk loans, which Hometap deceptively brands as 'option purchase agreements,'" Crawford's original complaint said.
In a typical contract, homeowners receive a percentage of the accrued equity in their properties for a fixed term, with no regular payments required. At the end of the term or after a triggering event under the agreement, the homeowner is required to repay the amount taken out along with an agreed appreciation amount, with the original number ballooning into totals catching them off guard.
While
A court hearing on Hometap's arbitration request is scheduled for Oct. 29. Any ruling in favor of Hometap would also allow it to resolve the litigation more quickly than through a public court battle.
Where other legal cases stand
The HEI company's California request follows another call for arbitration made just weeks earlier in the Middle District of North Carolina, where two Hometap clients had filed a similar complaint against the firm. On Friday, attorneys representing the plaintiffs added additional litigants to their side in an amended complaint, as they sought to strengthen their position and reiterate a call for a jury trial in response to Hometap's move.
An arbitration request in New Jersey is also currently under review after both plaintiffs and Hometap presented their arguments for and against earlier this summer. Attorneys for a New Jersey couple first filed suit in February.
In a related case against HEI platform Point, Steven Muskal, a son of a former client, filed suit against the firm in January in federal court for the Northern District of Illinois, arguing the company's agreements constituted loans and violated TILA. As an heir and representative of his late father's estate, Muskal also pursued a state court case last year in Arizona, where the agreement was signed and the property in question is located.
Like Hometap, Point sought to compel arbitration in both cases. An Arizona state judge denied the company's request, with the ruling now under appeal by Point.
In Illinois, a federal court arbitration decision is currently pending.
