Borrowers claim DHI Mortgage understated taxes in new‑build PITI quotes
D.R. Horton and DHI Mortgage are under fire in Nevada over allegations they hid the true monthly cost of new‑build mortgages by understating property taxes.
In a civil action filed on December 3, 2025, in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, borrowers accuse the country’s largest homebuilder and its wholly owned mortgage subsidiary of operating what they call a “Monthly Payment Suppression Scheme” on loans for D.R. Horton homes. The filing says the conduct “conceals the true monthly cost of purchasing its homes from unsuspecting homebuyers.”
According to the documents, D.R. Horton and DHI Mortgage market an integrated “one‑stop shop” to predominantly first‑time, working‑ and middle‑class homebuyers, including many using FHA and VA programs. For the year ended September 30, 2024, D.R. Horton’s homebuilding operations closed 89,690 homes, and DHI Mortgage provided mortgage financing services for 78 percent of those homes. The filing further states that, in 2024, 43.08 percent of DHI Mortgage’s 70,690 loan originations were FHA, 38.4 percent were conventional and 17.57 percent were VA.
The borrowers allege that, when preparing financing offers, DHI Mortgage generates two property‑tax numbers for each transaction. One is described as a “Suppressed Estimate,” based on the low tax assessment of the unimproved land before D.R. Horton builds the home. The other is a higher “True Estimate,” reflecting what the complaint says are the substantially higher taxes that will apply to the completed property.
The lower figure is alleged to be used throughout the origination process to calculate the “Estimated Total Monthly Payment” on Loan Estimates, Closing Disclosures and in setting up the initial escrow account. The higher figure is alleged to appear in internal paperwork, including FHA “Conditional Commitment Direct Endorsement Statement of Appraised Value” forms that are not used to compute the borrower’s quoted monthly payment.
The filing asserts that, through this approach, Defendants “systemically cut the amount escrowed for property taxes by up to 80% annually,” for example by escrowing on US$1,500 of annual taxes when US$7,500 would be reasonably anticipated, based on other homes in the development and area. According to the complaint, this can make the initial monthly payment estimate lower by up to US$500 per month, or US$6,000 per year, before any escrow cushion or shortfall is considered.
The borrowers say the effects emerge after closing, when DHI Mortgage sells the loans and a new servicer later performs an escrow analysis once higher property‑tax bills come due. The named plaintiffs allege that their payments then rose sharply. The filing states that the Skougard Family’s payment increased from US$2,198.77 to US$2,717.88 per month, the Hinds Family’s from approximately US$2,076.24 to US$2,485.78, Kim Robinson’s from about US$1,780.60 to roughly US$2,158.31, and the Santorii‑Whitney Family’s from US$2,878.57 to US$3,968.84.
The documents argue that this conduct is inconsistent with borrower expectations, industry practice and the defendants’ legal obligations. They allege violations of federal escrow and disclosure requirements, including rules that lenders must use accurate, good‑faith estimates of taxes and, for FHA loans, escrow “the estimated amount of all property taxes.” The filing also cites Nevada’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act, negligence, negligence per se based on alleged violations of federal and FHA/VA standards, and unjust enrichment.
In addition, the borrowers assert a civil racketeering claim, contending that D.R. Horton and DHI Mortgage form an association‑in‑fact enterprise that uses interstate wires to disseminate advertisements, transmit DocuSign packages and move loan proceeds while carrying out the alleged scheme.
The suit seeks certification of a nationwide class that the filing estimates to be in the “high tens of thousands, possibly greater than 100,000,” along with FHA and Nevada subclasses. The borrowers request actual and treble damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs, and they demand a jury trial. All of the conduct described remains at the allegation stage, and no court has made findings of fact or law.
For mortgage professionals, the allegations highlight that lenders’ methods for estimating, disclosing and escrowing property taxes on new construction can be central to potential legal exposure.
