How to run Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath for Maine

Step-by-step

Below is a practical walkthrough for running DocketMath’s Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in Maine (US-ME). The main goal is to ensure the analyzer applies Maine’s prevailing-party costs and judgment interest framework, particularly the 6% per annum interest rate that attaches to “the amount awarded by the judgment.”

1) Open the Offer Of Judgment Analyzer tool

1. Go to the primary CTA: **Offer Of Judgment Analyzer
2. Start a new run (or select a new case/session if your interface prompts you).

2) Set the jurisdiction to Maine (US-ME)

In the tool settings or case options:

• Choose **Jurisdiction: US-ME (Maine)

This matters because DocketMath uses jurisdiction-aware rules to compute effects tied to prevailing-party costs and judgment interest.

3) Enter your judgment/award inputs

The analyzer will typically require numbers that represent:

• Amount awarded by the judgment (this is the baseline figure that interest should attach to in the Maine rule)
• Any additional costs you want included (only if the tool offers a field for costs)
• Optionally, a time horizon (for example, days/months from judgment to the comparison date). If the tool auto-derives this, verify the default dates shown on screen.

If you’re unsure which number to use as the “amount awarded,” follow the statute language used by Maine:

• Use the figure that corresponds to “the amount awarded by the judgment.”
  (Avoid substituting a demand amount, claimed amount, or an offer amount.)

4) Confirm the interest rule it should use (Maine default)

For Maine, the relevant jurisdiction data you’re using is:

• 14 M.R.S. § 1501: “In all actions for injuries or death, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover costs and interest on the amount awarded by the judgment at the rate of 6% per annum.”
  Source: https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/14/title14sec1501.html

Important default clarity:
A claim-type-specific sub-rule was not found for the analyzer input set you’re using. That means the tool should treat this 6% per annum rule as the general/default interest rule for the Maine run you configure (unless the tool itself explicitly indicates a different eligible Maine-specific override).

In DocketMath, look for UI text along the lines of:

• Interest rate: 6% per year
• Applies to: amount awarded by the judgment
• No special claim-type override detected (or equivalent wording)

If the UI offers a toggle for “special sub-rules,” leave it off unless the analyzer explicitly indicates it found an eligible Maine-specific override.

5) Enter the offer terms (if the tool requests them)

Most Offer of Judgment analyzers need offer-related numbers such as:

• Offer amount (or settlement offer value)
• Offer date and/or acceptance date
• Any timing detail the tool uses to decide when the offer is considered “active” (depending on the tool’s workflow)

As you enter these fields, watch how outputs change:

• Changing the offer amount should shift the analyzer’s offer-vs-judgment comparison.
• Changing dates should shift any time-based interest/cost modeling—if the tool prorates interest or runs a time window you control.

6) Run the analysis

Click one of the available actions:

• Analyze, Calculate, or Run

Review results in two layers:

1. Computed interest on the judgment award (this is where you should see 6% per annum reflected)
2. Offer-vs-judgment comparison outputs (the analyzer’s main deliverable)

7) Export or save the results (if available)

If DocketMath offers:

• PDF export
• CSV export
• Case summary save

Use it to preserve the exact inputs and outputs for your Maine (US-ME) run.

Common pitfalls

Maine is relatively straightforward with the general rule, but the analyzer output can still surprise you if inputs or settings are inconsistent. Watch for these common issues:

If you leave the jurisdiction set to a different state, the analyzer may use a different interest rate and a different cost framework than 14 M.R.S. § 1501.

Maine ties interest to “the amount awarded by the judgment.” If you enter a different number (for example, a demand amount, claim amount, or settlement offer figure), interest calculations will be off.

For this dataset, the note is explicit: no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found. If the tool doesn’t show an override option—or doesn’t confirm one—use the general/default rule: 6% per annum.

If the analyzer prorates interest or applies a specific time window, ensure your dates align with what the UI is asking for (judgment date, comparison date, offer date—whatever fields the tool specifies).

Defaults can be helpful, but confirm:

• the interest rate it’s using
• the time period or proration basis (if applicable)
• whether “costs” are included or excluded in the model

Try it

Use DocketMath’s Offer Of Judgment Analyzer and run through these quick checks:

• ✅ Confirm you are on /tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer
• ✅ Set Jurisdiction = US-ME
• ✅ Verify the interest component uses 6% per annum (Maine default under 14 M.R.S. § 1501)
• ✅ Ensure the “amount awarded by the judgment” matches the tool’s expected baseline field

Then do a small sensitivity test to confirm the tool is responding logically:

• Change only the award amount

  • The interest output should increase proportionally (if interest is computed from the award baseline).
• Change only the date window (if the tool allows it)

  • The interest portion should change with time (if the tool prorates).
• Change only the offer amount

  • The offer-vs-judgment comparison should shift, while the “interest on award” portion should remain stable (assuming dates and award inputs are unchanged).

If the tool includes a breakdown table or explanation panel, look for categories that align with Maine’s modeled rule, such as:

• Interest on the judgment award
• Prevailing-party costs (only if the tool models costs)
• Offer-vs-judgment comparison

Quick output checklist (what “good” looks like)

Related reading

• Offer of Judgment Analyzer Guide for Alabama
• Offer of Judgment Analyzer Guide for Arizona
• Offer of Judgment Analyzer Guide for Colorado