The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court's attorney's fees award to Equity Resources, Inc. following its successful jury trial against competitor T2 Financial, LLC, which operates under the name Revolution Mortgage. The decision, filed Jan. 6, 2026, in case No. 25-3255, upholds the lower court's ruling while denying Revolution Mortgage's appeal challenging the fee award.
The case stems from a November 2021 lawsuit filed by Equity Resources against Revolution Mortgage and three employees in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Equity Resources alleged that Revolution Mortgage solicited its former employees to steal trade secrets and use those confidential materials to divert mortgage loans from Equity Resources to Revolution Mortgage.
Both companies operate as competing mortgage lenders in what appears to be an increasingly competitive market where employee recruitment and client relationships play crucial roles in business success. The allegations suggest a pattern of corporate espionage designed to gain unfair competitive advantages through misappropriation of confidential business information.
During the litigation process, Equity Resources moved to dismiss all individual employees as defendants, choosing to focus its claims solely on Revolution Mortgage as the corporate entity allegedly orchestrating the scheme. The case proceeded to trial on three primary claims against Revolution Mortgage: tortious interference with a business relationship, conversion, and what appears to be additional claims related to the alleged trade secret theft.
Following the jury trial, Equity Resources emerged victorious and subsequently filed a motion seeking attorney's fees from the defendant. The district court granted the motion in part, awarding Equity Resources reduced attorney's fees and costs. However, the court denied the company's request for interest on the award, limiting the scope of the financial recovery.
Revolution Mortgage appealed the district court's decision to the Sixth Circuit, mounting a two-pronged challenge to the fee award. First, the company argued that Equity Resources was not entitled to attorney's fees at all under the applicable legal standards. Second, Revolution Mortgage contended that even if fees were appropriate, the district court committed errors in calculating and awarding the specific amount granted to Equity Resources.
The three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Gibbons, Stranch, and Davis reviewed the appeal, with Judge Jane B. Stranch writing the opinion for the court. The panel conducted a thorough analysis of both the legal basis for the fee award and the district court's methodology in determining the appropriate amount.
In affirming the district court's judgment, the Sixth Circuit rejected Revolution Mortgage's arguments on both fronts. The appeals court found that Equity Resources was indeed entitled to attorney's fees under the circumstances of the case and that the district court did not err in its calculation of the reduced fee award.
The decision represents a significant victory for Equity Resources, which not only prevailed at trial but also successfully defended its right to recover attorney's fees on appeal. For companies facing similar trade secret theft and business interference claims, the ruling demonstrates that successful plaintiffs may be able to recover their legal costs in addition to any damages awarded by juries.
The case highlights the ongoing challenges facing businesses in protecting confidential information and trade secrets, particularly in competitive industries where employee mobility can create opportunities for corporate espionage. The mortgage lending industry, in particular, relies heavily on customer relationships, pricing strategies, and operational processes that companies consider proprietary and confidential.
For Revolution Mortgage, the affirmance means the company must pay both the original judgment and the attorney's fees awarded to Equity Resources. While the specific monetary amounts were not disclosed in the available court filing, attorney's fees in complex commercial litigation can often reach substantial sums, particularly in cases that proceed through jury trial and appeal.
The Sixth Circuit's decision also reinforces the principle that courts have discretion in awarding attorney's fees in appropriate cases, and that appellate courts will generally defer to district court determinations on fee calculations unless clear errors are demonstrated. The ruling may encourage other companies to pursue similar claims when they believe competitors have engaged in unfair business practices involving trade secret theft.
The case was marked "Not Recommended for Publication," indicating that while the decision resolves the dispute between the parties, the court does not view it as establishing new legal precedent worthy of formal publication in the court's official reporter. However, the ruling still provides guidance for practitioners handling similar trade secret and business interference cases.
Looking ahead, Revolution Mortgage's options for further appeal appear limited, as the case would need to meet stringent criteria for Supreme Court review. The affirmance effectively concludes the litigation that began in November 2021, providing final resolution for both competing mortgage companies after more than three years of legal proceedings.