Opinion ID: 2053552
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: the alleged relationship between mr. montgomery and plaintiff

Text: When plaintiff filed suit, he named Mr. Montgomery as a defendant. However, Montgomery was never served, and plaintiff did not proceed against him as a first-party defendant. Defense counsel then sought leave to file a third-party complaint against Montgomery. Plaintiff expressed concern that Montgomery was appearing without counsel and referred him to attorney Sheldon Miller. [21] During trial, defense counsel raised questions about the relationship between plaintiff's counsel and Montgomery's counsel. The trial judge stated that he would allow the defense to question Montgomery about his relationship with plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel. However, for whatever reason, the defense chose to pose no questions. Defendants now contend that they were denied a fair trial because counsel for plaintiff and Montgomery entered into a  Mary Carter  [22] agreement. In Smith v. Childs, [23] the Court of Appeals stated: The distinguishing characteristics of a Mary Carter agreement are that it (1) not act as a release, so the agreeing defendant remains in the case, (2) is structured in a way that it caps the agreeing defendant's potential liability and gives that defendant an incentive to assist the plaintiff's case against the other defendants, and (3) is kept secret from the other parties and the trier of fact, causing all to misunderstand the agreeing defendant's motives. Mary Carter agreements deny a fair trial to those defendants who are not part of the agreement. Smith v. Childs, 198 Mich.App. 94, 97-98, 497 N.W.2d 538 (1993). While the record may raise questions regarding the relationship between plaintiff's counsel and Montgomery's counsel, there is no direct evidence that a Mary Carter agreement was ever established. Defendants have failed to demonstrate that an agreement existed that capped Montgomery's liability as an incentive for him to assist plaintiff in her case against defendants. Thus, the argument that such an agreement denied defendant a fair trial fails.