She paid the deposits, trusted the assurances, and signed the contract anyway
A Utah appeals court ruled that a homebuyer who lost $131,000 in nonrefundable deposits has no legal way to recover the money.
The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of all claims brought against Ivory Homes LTD, My Move Mortgage LLC (doing business as Momentum Loans), and an Ivory sales agent, in a decision filed November 5, 2026.
The buyer approached Ivory about building a new home in a Provo, Utah, development. The initial purchase price came to $783,400. She had not been preapproved for a loan, but according to the opinion, Ivory assured her it “had every confidence” she would qualify for financing through Momentum and told her “to not worry” because Momentum would “take care of” her.
She paid a $5,000 deposit, signed a purchase agreement on June 14, 2022, attended a pre-construction meeting, chose upgrades that pushed the price to about $872,000, and paid a further $126,000 deposit. The agreement stated that her obligation to purchase was “not contingent upon [her] obtaining financing.” Both deposits were nonrefundable.
The contract also contained a broad waiver releasing Ivory and its employees from liability for financial advice, an integration clause that barred reliance on any sales agent’s verbal representations, and a statement that the buyer was “not relying upon any warranties, promises, guarantees or representations” unless they were written into the agreement.
Then the financing collapsed. According to the opinion, Momentum did not proactively contact the buyer about pre-qualification. She had to initiate the conversation herself. After she paid the $126,000 deposit, Momentum “became extremely difficult to communicate with” and “canceled scheduled meetings.” When Momentum finally requested her tax returns in March 2023, underwriters refused to count income from a tax arrangement she used and declined the loan. She withdrew. Ivory kept the $131,000.
The buyer sued for fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and other causes of action. The district court dismissed everything. The appeals court affirmed.
Her fraud claims were blocked by the economic loss rule, which channels disputes between contracting parties into contract law rather than tort. She argued an exception should apply because the sales agent held a real estate broker’s license. The court disagreed, holding that brokers “do not, by virtue of their licensing, hold themselves out as having particular skills or knowledge in the field of financing.” The court added in a footnote that the buyer’s reliance on the financing assurances was unreasonable anyway, because she never shared any details of her financial situation with Ivory or its agent.
Her unjust enrichment claim failed because a valid contract already governed the relationship. Her breach-of-contract claim failed because the only obligation she identified as having been breached was her own - the duty to provide a lender qualification letter by the contractual deadline. She could not point to a single duty that Ivory had breached. The court noted her real grievance appeared to be that the agreement was unfair, “perhaps even ‘[un]conscionable,’” but she never brought that claim.
For mortgage professionals working in preferred-lender arrangements with builders, the takeaway is concrete: verbal financing assurances mean nothing when the written contract shifts every ounce of risk onto the borrower.
