Court Opinion

ID: 9560019
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:41:04.276851+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:59.136053
License: Public Domain

RILEY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
A deal is a deal!
Without referencing Rule 68, defendant Southern Farm made an Offer of Judgment by tendering its policy limits of $100,000, “but denying] any liability for costs, penalty, interest or attorney fees.” Plaintiffs then “aceept[ed] the offer made by defendant in its Offer of Judgment ... by which defendant offered to allow judgment to be taken against it for $100,000 pursuant to Rule 68”
The district court entered Judgment for $100,000 after referencing the Offer of Judgment and the Acceptance of Offer of Judgment “pursuant to Rule 68.... ” Contrary to the majority’s footnote explanation, the Judgment does not say it is entered pursuant to Rule 68. In the district court’s Order on Plaintiffs Motion to Reconsider, the court found “defendant made an unambiguous offer to settle the case for $100,000.00 which did not include any liability for costs, penalty, interest or attorney fees and ... plaintiffs accepted without any reservations.” A deal was made.
A Rule 68 offer excluding all costs may be invalid. See Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1, 6, 105 S.Ct. 3012, 87 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (“As long as the offer does not implicitly or explicitly provide that the judgment not include costs, a timely .offer will be valid”). However, the offer by Southern Farm did not reference Rule 68 and is a valid settlement offer, even if an invalid Rule 68 offer. The settlement offer was accepted by plaintiffs according to the offer’s terms: “plaintiffs ... hereby accept the offer made by defendant in its Offer of Judgment” — a deal.2
The district court went further and alternatively reasoned in the final paragraph of its order that if the parties’ exchange were considered under Rule 68, “an offer under Rule 68 which does not include costs would not be a void offer as a party may waive his or her statutory eligibility for costs ... as part of a settlement agreement.” The Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in Util. Auto. 2000, Inc. v. Choctawhatchee Elec. Coop., 298 F.3d 1238 (2002), supports this view by reasoning that a Rule 68 offer may define what costs are or are not offered and payable. The court advises “defendants can easily preempt the dispute exemplified here [whether attorney fees are included as costs], as well as others, by *906clearly stating their intent in the offer of judgment.” Id. at 1249. Defendant Southern Farm clearly stated its offer “denies any liability for costs, penalty, interest or attorney’s fees.” (Emphasis added).
This appeal presents us with another example of parties voluntarily, with the advice of legal counsel no less, entering into an unambiguous contract, followed by one side experiencing regret and asking a court to invalidate the contract on a legal technicality. When one party’s word is not one’s bond, the courts should not affirm the breach of that word.
I would affirm the district court’s finding and enforcement of an unambiguous settlement agreement. A deal is a deal.

. The plaintiffs unequivocally accepted defendant’s offer. The plaintiffs' subsequent re-characterization of the offer as "pursuant to Rule 68” cannot reasonably reflect a counteroffer or otherwise fail to "manifest mutual assent to the same terms,” as theorized by the majority’s explanatory footnote, because plaintiffs already had accepted the offer. The majority’s theory also is contrary to the district court's express finding of fact that the "plaintiffs ... accepted without any reservations.”