Opinion ID: 2628311
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rhodes Waived Her Constitutional Arguments.

Text: Rhodes argues that the due process guarantee of access to the courts required the trial court to reduce Erion's Rule 68 award under the Rule 82(b)(3) factors and that [t]he disparate treatment for plaintiffs and defendants under Rule 68 violates equal protection and due process. Although she failed to brief these constitutional arguments before the trial court, Rhodes contends that her Rule 82(b)(3)(I) arguments in the trial court were sufficient to preserve the constitutional issues for appeal. Alternatively, she argues that the trial court committed plain error by declining to reduce the award under Rule 82(b)(3) on constitutional grounds. But an argument that the Rule 82(b)(3) factors should be applied to reduce an award is not enough to preserve an appellate claim that Rule 68 is unconstitutional. [22] Rhodes did not raise a constitutional argument at the trial court level, and she failed to include any constitutional arguments in her amended points on appeal. Rhodes thus waived her constitutional arguments. [23] And Rhodes's plain error argument is unavailing given that in deciding a facial challenge to the statutory provision governing offers of judgment, we decline[d] to expand the right of access to prohibit an offer of judgment scheme. [24]