A general contractor (CSI) sued a school and property owner for unpaid construction work and claimed a mechanic's lien. A bank later tried to claim CSI had assigned its legal claims through a settlement agreement. The Texas Court of Appeals ruled that the settlement language only showed intent to assign claims in the future, not an immediate transfer of rights. The court reversed the dismissal against the school but kept the dismissal against the property owner, sending the case back for trial.
Release agreements must use clear present-tense language to actually transfer your legal claims. Vague 'agree to assign' language won't work and courts will interpret it as a future promise only.