The defendant brought a motion compelling the plaintiff to produce mortgage application documents from two non-party lenders.
The documents were sought after the defendant received information suggesting the plaintiff may have been working while claiming disability benefits and after a settlement had been reached.
The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the motion was beyond a master’s jurisdiction because it related to settlement enforcement.
The court held that the requested documents were relevant to potential misrepresentations and to the enforceability of the settlement agreement.
Production of the mortgage application files limited to references to employment was ordered, including production from the non-party lenders.
