How to run Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath for New Hampshire

Step-by-step

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

Use DocketMath’s Offer Of Judgment Analyzer to estimate how an offer of judgment may affect post-offer interest calculations in New Hampshire (US-NH). This is meant to be a practical estimation tool—not a substitute for legal advice or case-specific statutory analysis.

Because DocketMath is designed to be jurisdiction-aware, the main goal is selecting the correct jurisdiction and entering dates that match the timing rule in N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 507:16-b.

1) Open the Offer Of Judgment Analyzer

1. Go to the tool landing page: /tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer
2. Confirm you’re using the correct tool: Offer Of Judgment Analyzer

2) Set jurisdiction to New Hampshire (US-NH)

In the tool’s jurisdiction selector:

• Choose **United States → New Hampshire (US-NH)

This matters because New Hampshire’s provided statute rule under N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 507:16-b uses a specific interest structure:

• Interest rate: (average prime rate) + 1%
• Timing window: from the date of the offer until the judgment is paid
• Trigger condition shown in the statute text: the rule applies in civil actions where settlement is not reached before any trial

Also, for this New Hampshire setup, no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found in the jurisdiction data provided. So you should apply the general/default period as stated in the provided statute text: from the date of the offer until the judgment is paid, assuming the scenario matches the “settlement not reached before any trial” condition.

3) Enter the minimum factual inputs the analyzer needs

The tool labels may vary slightly, but the concepts you’ll enter should include:

• Offer date

  • The date you served/made the offer of judgment (use the date that matches your facts).
• Judgment amount

  • The principal “judgment obtained” figure the interest would be calculated against.
• Judgment paid date (or “paid through” date)

  • The date payment is received, or the date you want the estimate calculated through.
• Average prime rate handling

  • If DocketMath prompts for the prime rate method or source, use the US-NH jurisdiction-aware default.
  • If the tool allows an override or manual prime rate entry, enter the value you’re using for the relevant period, and confirm whether the tool expects you to:

    • enter the prime rate only and let it add +1%, or
    • enter the combined (average prime rate + 1%) directly.

Finally, ensure the tool question regarding the “settlement not reached before any trial” condition (if present) is answered consistently with your scenario. The provided statute text applies in civil actions where settlement is not reached before any trial.

4) Run the calculation

Click Calculate / Analyze to generate results such as:

• Estimated interest
• Estimated total (typically judgment + interest)

If DocketMath shows a breakdown, review:

• the time window used (from offer date to paid date),
• the rate used (average prime rate + 1%),
• and the interest total.

5) Adjust inputs and compare outputs

To understand what drives the estimate, change one input at a time and compare results:

• Move the offer date later

  • The interest accrues over a shorter period → lower estimated interest.
• Move the paid date later

  • The accrual window increases → higher estimated interest.
• Change the judgment principal

  • Interest generally scales with the principal → larger principal usually increases interest.

This “what-if” approach helps you see how sensitive the estimate is to the statute’s key timing rule: from the date of the offer until the judgment is paid.

6) Record the results for decision-making

After you run the scenario you trust most:

• Copy or export the results from the tool (if available).
• Save a short note of the key inputs used:

  • offer date
  • paid-through/paid date
  • judgment amount
  • (if applicable) the rate method it used

Reminder: The provided rule text specifically states “average prime rate plus 1%” and applies “from the date of the offer until the judgment is paid.” The guidance above assumes the general/default period because no claim-type-specific sub-rule was identified in the provided jurisdiction data.

Common pitfalls

Even with a jurisdiction-aware tool, small input choices can materially affect the output.

• missing a required input
• using a stale rate or rule
• ignoring calendar or holiday adjustments
• skipping documentation of assumptions

Capture the source for each input so another team member can verify the same result quickly.

Pitfall: Using the wrong date window

New Hampshire’s timing depends on offer date → judgment paid date. If you enter dates that don’t reflect the correct statutory timeline, the calculation will be off.

Check that:

• Offer date matches the date the offer was actually made/served (based on your facts).
• Paid date matches the date payment was received (or the estimate’s intended “paid-through” date).

Pitfall: Assuming a different rule applies to particular claim types

For the New Hampshire rule described here, no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found in the jurisdiction data you’re working from. Practical takeaway:

• Use the general/default period: from the date of the offer until the judgment is paid.
• Don’t switch to a different accrual method unless you have independent basis beyond what’s captured in this tool’s provided setup.

Pitfall: Confusing “prime rate” with “average prime rate + 1%”

The statute text (as provided) is not just “prime rate”; it is:

• (average prime rate) + 1%

If the tool uses an override field:

• confirm whether you enter:

  • average prime rate alone (and the tool adds +1%), or
  • the combined average prime rate + 1% (and the tool does not add again).

Pitfall: Answering the “settlement not reached before any trial” condition inconsistently

The provided statute text applies in civil actions where:

• settlement is not reached before any trial

If your scenario involves settlement before trial, the statute text you’re relying on may not fit. In that case, treat the tool output as a limited estimate rather than a definitive calculation.

Pitfall: Inconsistent principal / judgment amount

The interest is calculated on the “judgment obtained” (principal). If you input:

• a number from the verdict but not the final judgment,
• or a different principal across scenarios, then comparisons can be misleading.

Check that:

• Judgment amount matches the “judgment obtained” figure you intend the interest to apply to.

Tip: The largest swings often come from date choices—especially the offer date and paid-through/paid date.

Try it

Use this quick workflow to see how DocketMath changes the estimate when you adjust inputs:

1. Open the analyzer: /tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer
2. Select US-NH
3. Enter:

   • Offer date
   • Judgment amount
   • Paid-through date (or paid date)
4. Click Calculate / Analyze
5. Run two comparison scenarios:

• Scenario A (paid date test): Keep everything the same; move the paid date 30 days later.
• Scenario B (offer date test): Keep everything the same; move the offer date 30 days later.

What you should observe (generally):

• Scenario A: estimated interest should increase, because the accrual window runs longer: from the date of the offer until the judgment is paid.
• Scenario B: estimated interest should generally decrease, because the start of the accrual shifts later.

If the tool displays rate details, verify it aligns with the statute text you’re using:

• average prime rate + 1%
• applied over the offer-to-paid period

Related reading

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