First - I'm so glad you came back!

I'm not sure if the credit union released the truck thinking/knowing it could hold your funds for ransom. Maybe it wasn't a clean release - ?

Not uncommon when it's a debt to pay the creditor's legal fees - not necessarily fair, such as in your case.

IF the settlement sounds reasonable to you, I would take it. If, on the other hand, it doesn't, yes, I'd get another opinion. Also make sure there's an understanding about what will or won't be reported to the credit reporting services. You don't want this as a blemish on your record.

Would I get a second opinion? Yes, I would. Too many twists and turns in this situation.

On the other hand if you are 100% confident in your Lawyer, I wouldn't get that second opinion.

(I work in the profession, had my own situation some years ago, first Attorney told me I would 100% lose, not a chance I could win. I believe I was right, retained another Attorney, WON 100%. Sometimes it's a matter of where they are coming from.)

JudyKeyTee you are so awesome! Thank you for helping me and giving me quesitons. I went to my lawyer yesterday and asked to see my file. He had received two letters from the Lawyers the credit union hired and he hadn't told me about the second one. The first one talks about a security interest that my husband signed and has that as Exhibit A it also talks about a right to repayment of indebtedness that my husband signed as exhibit C. First exhibit A is for a loan my husband didn't even take out in 1996 he thinks he was thinking about consolidating but he didn't can they still use this against him when this loan that he filled out paperwork for didn't go through? And second the exhibit C isn't even signed bymy husband and it is from 1994! The truck they say my husband owes them money for is a 1997 truck! Should I be worried my lawyer didn't catch this?

Then the second letter my lawyer got that he didn't tell me about was chewing my lawyer out for contacting the credit union's collection agent (remember the collection agent agreed to give us our money back over the phone with my lawyer) so now they CU's lawyer is saying that can't be held up because my lawyer due to a Idaho rule of professional conduct 4.2 para 7 can't communicate with a constituent of the org. who regularly consults with the org. lawyer. Even though the CU hadn't told us that. Was my lawyer in the wrong?

I'm on the road today - let me digest this.

At this moment I see mistakes made by your Attorney. Yes, you paid him to represent you and I don't understand how the error about a 1997 truck got past him.

Let me think about this -