How to run Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath for Montana

Step-by-step

Run this scenario in DocketMath using the Offer Of Judgment Analyzer calculator.

Follow these steps to run DocketMath’s Offer Of Judgment Analyzer for Montana (US-MT). This walkthrough is designed to help you go from basic “offer data” to a clear, scenario-based view of how Montana’s offer-of-judgment cost/fee framework can affect exposure under Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-211.

1) Open the analyzer from the primary CTA

1. Go to the primary tool link: /tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer
2. Confirm the jurisdiction selector is set to Montana (US-MT).

   • If there’s a jurisdiction dropdown, choose US-MT before entering any numbers.

2) Gather the offer inputs you’ll need

Before you start typing, collect the following items. The analyzer works best when you use consistent amounts and the same “unit” for each figure (for example, dollars).

Typical inputs to have ready:

• Offer amount (the dollar value of the offer of judgment)
• Date the offer was served
• Date the offer was rejected (or the relevant date you want the analyzer to treat as the cutoff)
• Your side’s litigation cost estimates (as applicable in your scenario)
• Expected recovery (what judgment you expect the case might reach—use either a single target number or multiple scenarios)

3) Enter the numbers in DocketMath

In the Offer Of Judgment Analyzer:

• Paste or type the offer amount
• Add the offer date and the rejection date (or the date you want the analyzer to treat as the cutoff)
• Enter case outcome value(s) you want to compare against the offer

If DocketMath provides scenario boxes (for example, “Outcome A” and “Outcome B”), you can use them to model variations like:

• “Judgment is above the offer”
• “Judgment is at/near the offer”
• “Judgment is below the offer”

Tip: Keep the offer-related numbers fixed while you change the modeled judgment. That way, you can attribute changes in the output to judgment position rather than accidentally changing the “rules inputs.”

4) Confirm the jurisdiction-aware rules are using Montana’s baseline

DocketMath’s Montana logic is intended to be tied to Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-211, which addresses the potential cost/fee consequences when a party rejects an offer of judgment.

Key point for this Montana workflow:

• No claim-type-specific sub-rule was found.
• That means the analyzer uses the general/default period associated with the Montana rule context (i.e., baseline treatment under § 27-1-211 rather than a specialized alternative window for particular claim types).

5) Run the calculation

Click Run (or Calculate) after completing your entries.

At this stage, DocketMath will:

• Compare your modeled judgment against the offer amount
• Apply the Montana fee/cost exposure framework from Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-211 as configured in the tool’s jurisdiction-aware rules
• Produce outputs reflecting how the scenario changes the likely cost/fee picture

6) Read and interpret the outputs

The analyzer output is typically most useful when you focus on:

• The directional result (for example, whether exposure increases when the modeled outcome is less favorable relative to the offer)
• Any dollar deltas between scenarios (Outcome A vs. Outcome B)
• Which inputs appear to most influence the totals (often offer amount, modeled judgment position, and cost estimates)

Quick sanity check:

• If you enter a modeled judgment that is clearly far below the offer, you should see a meaningfully different exposure result than when you enter a judgment that is clearly above the offer.

Quick reference: what statute is the analyzer anchored to?

Montana’s offer-of-judgment framework referenced in this workflow is:

• Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-211
  “A party who rejects an offer of judgment may be subject to the provisions of this section regarding costs and fees.”

Source: https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0010/part_0020/section_0110/

7) Iterate with multiple scenarios (recommended)

To get a clearer decision picture, rerun the analyzer using:

• The same offer but different modeled judgment outcomes
• The same outcome but different offer amounts (for example, $50,000 vs. $75,000)
• Different cost inputs if your estimates vary (for example, minimal vs. more aggressive cost projection)

This is the fastest way to understand how sensitive the result is to your assumptions.

Common pitfalls

These are the mistakes that most often skew offer-of-judgment analyses in DocketMath:

1. Mixing offer and judgment dates

   • If you enter the wrong rejection date, the analyzer’s timing can appear “off” relative to what happened procedurally in the case record.

2. Assuming Montana has a claim-type-specific sub-rule in this analyzer

   • For this Montana workflow, no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found. The tool uses the general/default period anchored to Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-211, not a specialized alternative window for particular claim types.

3. Using inconsistent amounts

   • Example: entering costs in one scenario as totals and in another as monthly figures. Keep units consistent across scenarios.

4. Over-trusting a single “point estimate” outcome

   • Many results can look dramatic when the case value is treated as one number. Running multiple scenarios (above/near/below the offer) is usually more informative than relying on a single modeled judgment.

5. Not double-checking inputs

   • Even a well-built calculator can produce misleading results if the offer amount, dates, or modeled judgment values are entered incorrectly.

Try it

Ready to run the Montana Offer Of Judgment Analyzer now? Start here:

• Open /tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer
• Set jurisdiction to **Montana (US-MT)
• Enter:

  • Offer amount
  • Offer date
  • Rejection date
  • **Modeled judgment amount(s)

If you want to improve accuracy before you calculate, review how the tool structures assumptions in other calculators while you build your scenario set. Use the same careful approach: keep the offer-related fields stable, then vary only one assumption at a time.

Suggested “fast test” session (5 minutes):

• Use one offer amount
• Run 3 outcomes:

  • Judgment at 80% of the offer
  • Judgment at 100% of the offer
  • Judgment at 120% of the offer
• Keep costs the same across runs so you can clearly see the impact of outcome vs. offer

Then compare the output lines and identify:

• Which scenario produces the smallest projected exposure
• How changing judgment by roughly 10–20% shifts the totals

Related reading

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