Court Opinion

ID: 9656283
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:45:23.831345+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:31:07.225454
License: Public Domain

R. M. Maher, P.J.
(concurring). I concur in the decision of the majority but write separately to state that implicit to this Court’s application of GCR 1963, 519.1 is the conclusion that an offer of judgment is not subject to the interest statute. Singleton v Davis, 95 Mich App 182, 185; 290 NW2d 117 (1980) (Maher, J., dissenting), lv den 409 Mich 872 (1980), citing Bertilucci v Avery, 42 Mich App 483; 202 NW2d 331 (1971), and Beltz v Kimberley, 63 Mich App 700, 702-703, fn 1; 235 NW2d 25 (1975).
Under the new court rules, an offer of judgment is deemed to include costs and interest then accrued. MCR 2.405(A)(1). The new court rule does *560not reflect a change in law, but merely clarifies the old rule formalizing the settlement process. An application of the interest statute, MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013, to consent judgments would alter and frustrate the terms of a voluntary settlement.