Source: http://nwlawyer.wsba.org/nwlawyer/october_2014?pg=51&lm=1516237579000
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 02:27:56+00:00

Document:
Finally, for such rules to be effective, they must have teeth. In Barton, the sanction against Mr. Barton and his counsel was less than five percent of the judgment amount, and counsel for the Linvogs did not receive any sanction. In Collings, the trial court denied City First’s request for a new trial and did not impose any monetary sanction, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in a divided opinion. 33 Given the judicial interests at stake and the difficulty of establishing prejudice based on a record that has long since closed, there should be a presumptive rule requiring a new trial and significant sanctions unless the party that failed to disclose the settlement agreement can prove that there was no prejudice. 34 Otherwise, as Barton and Collings illustrate, there may not be sufficient incentive to disclose such agreements.
can be reached at feldman@pwrlk.
ously represented City First and Mr.
Lynch represented the Washington State Department of Transportation in the litigation described in this article. He can be reached at mikel@atg.wa.gov.
1. 202 So. 2d 8 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967).
2. Romero v. W. Valley Sch. Dist., 123 Wn. App. 385, 389—90 (2004) (“classic ‘Mary Carter agreement’” includes agreement giving settling defendant the right to recover half of everything collected by plaintiff in excess of settling defendant’s contribution).
3. When the Barton case was tried, case law interpreted a covenant not to execute to be a “release” that negated joint and contribution liability. See Maguire v. Teuber, 120 Wn. App. 393, 396 (2004), overruled by Barton v. State Dep’t of Transp., 178 Wn.2d 193, 204–08 (2013).
4. Barton v. State Dep’t of Transp., 164 Wn. App. 1024 (table), 2011 WL 5175599, at 1 (2011).
5. 178 Wn.2d at 216.
6. Collings v. City First Mortg. Servs., LLC, 177 Wn. App. 908 (2013).
7. Id. at 945 (Schindler, J., dissenting).
11. Id. at 921 (majority opinion), 944-45 (Schindler, J., dissenting).
12. Id. at 945 (Schindler, J., dissenting).
13. Id. at 923 (majority opinion).
14. Id. at 949, 940 (Schindler, J., dissenting).
16. Giambattista v. Nat’l. Bank of Commerce of Seattle, 21 Wn. App. 723, 735 n. 5 (1978).
17. McCluskey v. Handorff-Sherman, 68 Wn. App. 96, 103-04 (1992), aff’d on other grounds, 125 Wn.2d 1 (1994).
18. Bunting v. State, 87 Wn. App. 647, 654 (1997).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.