a proposed mutual release settlement agreement does not include the return of the borrowers deposit

Question

lawyers for the lender are attempting to get a quick signature to release all parties from the construction contract getting the banks money back in which the contractor hasn't returned it to the lender after the 12 months expiration of the contract . the contractor has agreed to pay back the borrowers money in an email , the lawyers for the lender is refusing to put it in the mutual release settlement agreement neither the lender or the contractor can be trusted through retained documentation both have been caught in documented lies throughout the year process leading to the mutual release agreement settlement being sent if you read the release it clearly spells out no action will be permitted by any party after the release is signed , it was suggested that the release could be signed by the borrowers after receiving the deposit from the contractor , lawyers for the lender refused and stated the deadline is enforced or the loan will be defaulted including legal action

Griffin Klema · Answer

Your question is somewhat confusing. If the borrower and the contractor are on "opposite sides of the v." or are both a plaintiff or a defendant but adverse to one another (such as a cross claim) then a release should be able to accommodate whatever settlement structure the parties desire or can negotiate for. If both the borrower and the contractor are not parties in the action, then getting a settlement agreement (contract) that includes the goals you describe may be more difficult. It may spoil the settlement among other parties, or not everyone agrees to the proposed settlement structure. Given the apparent complexity of the situation, I strongly recommend you obtain the assistance of a construction law attorney or real estate attorney to fully evaluate your specific concerns. Good luck!

Q: a proposed mutual release settlement agreement does not include the return of the borrowers deposit