Opinion ID: 2514236
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Superior Court Properly Refused to Affirm the Acceptance of Faulk's Offer of Judgment After the Trial.

Text: MAPCO also claims that the judgment below should be reversed because MAPCO accepted a valid pretrial offer of judgment made by Faulk. MAPCO asserts that the accepted offer of judgment should be substituted for the superior court's judgment. We reject this argument. Under Civil Rule 68, a party may make an offer of judgment more than ten days before trial that is non-revocable for ten days. [33] On October 18, 1999, Faulk made a Rule 68 offer of judgment to MAPCO in the amount of $100,000. At the time this offer was made, it was timely under Rule 68 because trial was scheduled for sometime in December, more than ten days later. On October 25, 1999, the parties were informed by the superior court that trial would commence on October 27, and the trial did start on that date. After the trial and the November 1, 1999 verdict in Faulk's favor, MAPCO attempted to accept Faulk's offer of judgment, on November 1. MAPCO claims that this acceptance was timely because it was within ten days of the offer's issuance, plus three days due to service by mail. However, the superior court refused to affirm this judgment, ruling that the offer was invalid, since it was made within ten days of the beginning of trial. Citing decisions of this court that have stated that a valid Rule 68 offer is irrevocable for ten days, [34] MAPCO claims that it had an absolute right to accept Faulk's offer, and that this right was not affected by the trial or the superior court's verdict. MAPCO's argument is that in this situation Rule 68 gives it the power to choose between the verdict issued by the court and the offer made by the plaintiff. However, Rule 68 applies to offers of judgment made more than ten days before the trial begins. Because Faulk's offer was not made more than ten days before the trial actually began, the literal language of the rule would not apply to Faulk's offer. Given the unusual situation present here, it is conceivable that interests of justice might have required the rule's literal language to be relaxed to accommodate an acceptance made before the trial concluded. But extending the time for acceptance until after the verdict would clearly violate the spirit and purpose of Rule 68. As three other state jurisdictions have held under their corresponding rules, [35] the purpose of Rule 68 is to encourage pretrial settlement, and this goal is frustrated if parties are allowed to pick and choose between the settlement offer and a known verdict, after subjecting all parties and the state to the time and expense of a trial. [36]