How to run Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath for Minnesota

Step-by-step

Below is a practical workflow for running DocketMath’s Offer Of Judgment Analyzer for Minnesota (US-MN). This is a how-to for using the calculator and understanding how the results map to Minnesota’s governing rule for interest on money judgments.

1) Start in DocketMath and open the correct tool

1. Go to the Offer Of Judgment Analyzer using the primary CTA: /tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer.
2. Confirm you’re using the offer-of-judgment-analyzer calculator (the page/title should match that tool name).

If you’re already in DocketMath, you can navigate directly rather than searching:

• Use: /tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer (i.e., the link above)

2) Set the jurisdiction to Minnesota (US-MN)

Within the tool, select:

• Jurisdiction: US-MN (Minnesota)

This matters because the analyzer applies Minnesota’s default interest framework to money judgments.

3) Enter the core inputs the analyzer needs

Screens can vary slightly, but most Offer Of Judgment Analyzer workflows rely on these practical categories:

• Money judgment amount (the amount the court entered as the money judgment)
• Offer information (for example, the date the offer was served and/or other offer-related dates the tool requests)
• Judgment interest start date (the analyzer may compute it if you provide offer/judgment dates, or it may ask directly)
• End date for interest calculation (often the date of payment, satisfaction, or another cutoff you specify)

How inputs change outputs:
The analyzer calculates interest by applying a rate across a date window. That means:

• If you change the end date, the calculated interest usually increases as the interest window grows.
• If you change the offer or interest start dates, the start of the interest window shifts, which can change the total materially.

Tip: If the tool uses fields like “payment date” vs. “as-of date,” choose the one that matches your goal. An “as-of” snapshot is usually more useful for estimating current exposure than an eventual payment date.

4) Use Minnesota’s general/default interest rule (4% per annum)

Minnesota’s interest rule for money judgments is set out in:

• Minn. Stat. § 548.14 (default interest on money judgments)

The statute states: “Interest shall be allowed on all money judgments at the rate of 4 percent per annum…” (Minn. Stat. § 548.14).

This is a general/default rule used when the analyzer isn’t applying a claim-type-specific variation.

Important tool behavior to expect:

• If you see the tool label the interest rate as 4% per year, that corresponds to Minn. Stat. § 548.14’s default framework.
• No claim-type-specific sub-rule was found for this tool run. As a result, treat 4% per annum as the baseline the analyzer applies for Minnesota in this workflow.

5) Review the outputs and how they change with inputs

After you submit, the analyzer typically returns items like:

• Interest amount for the selected time period
• Often an interest-then-total view (judgment + calculated interest)
• A date range breakdown (depending on the UI), showing which start/end dates were used

Use the outputs to “stress-test” your timeline:

• Change the end date (e.g., “as-of” date) → interest typically increases as the time window grows.
• Change the offer/judgment relevant dates → interest start date shifts → totals can change materially.

Quick sanity check:

• Look at the tool’s displayed interest start and end dates.
• Confirm those dates match the timeline you intended.
• If the interest window seems unexpectedly short or long, re-check the offer/judgment dates you entered and what each field means.

6) Capture results for recordkeeping

When the tool provides a summary, copy:

• The calculated interest amount
• The applied interest rate (expected to align with 4% for the default framework under Minn. Stat. § 548.14)
• The start/end dates used by the calculation engine

This makes it easier to reconcile the tool’s output with the docket record and to explain any differences if you rerun later with corrected dates.

Common pitfalls

Avoid these issues that can distort calculated interest in Minnesota runs:

• Minnesota results should use US-MN. Selecting a different jurisdiction can change the rate or calculation approach.

• Swapping “offer served” and “judgment entry” (or otherwise mixing up which date drives the interest start) can shift the interest window by weeks or months.

• Minnesota’s default money-judgment rule is 4% per annum under Minn. Stat. § 548.14.

• No claim-type-specific sub-rule was identified for this analyzer run, so if you expected a different rate based on claim category, the tool may still apply the default framework.

• Even a small end-date change (like 30–60 days) can noticeably change interest on larger judgment amounts.

• If you’re estimating “as of” a particular date, use an as-of cutoff (or the closest matching field).

• If you use a payment/satisfaction date instead, the result may not reflect your current snapshot.

Try it

Use this quick checklist to run a clean Minnesota scenario in DocketMath:

If you want a quick sanity-check:

• Change only the end date and rerun.
• The calculated interest should generally increase when the end date moves forward.
• If it behaves unexpectedly, re-check the date fields you entered and the meaning of each field in the UI.

Related reading

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