How to run Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath for South Carolina

Step-by-step

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

Here’s how to run Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath for South Carolina (US-SC), using DocketMath’s jurisdiction-aware rules and the general offer-of-judgment framework in S.C. Code Ann. § 15-35-500.

1) Open the correct calculator

1. Go to the primary CTA: /tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer
2. Confirm the jurisdiction selector is set to South Carolina (US-SC).
3. If DocketMath asks for an action type or case posture (for example, “offer made” vs. “offer received”), pick the option that matches your situation so the tool compares the numbers in the right direction.

2) Enter the core numbers the analyzer needs

Most Offer Of Judgment Analyzer workflows depend on inputs tied to:

• the offer amount (the dollar value stated in the offer), and
• the judgment amount (the amount you’re comparing against—typically the final judgment figure used for comparison).

Use these inputs as a guide (the exact labels can vary slightly by interface):

• Offer amount (the $ figure stated in the offer)
• Judgment amount (what the case resulted in, for comparison)
• Whether judgment is above or below the offer (if the tool asks). If the tool doesn’t ask, it will infer this from your values.

If the tool includes optional fields (for example timing-related entries or whether to include certain categories like costs/interest), fill them carefully and consistently across scenarios so you’re comparing apples-to-apples.

3) Set timing (South Carolina “default/default period” rule)

South Carolina’s statute authorizes an offer of judgment in civil actions, and DocketMath uses timing inputs (or default timing logic) to model whether the offer fits the statute’s mechanics.

For South Carolina, use the statute’s general/default period logic—there is no claim-type-specific sub-rule in this setup.

• S.C. Code Ann. § 15-35-500 (general authorization; civil actions)
  Source: https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t15c035.php
  Statute text (excerpt): “In any civil action, an offer of judgment may be made by any party to another party claiming damages...”

Important setup note: No claim-type-specific sub-rule was found. That means you should rely on the general/default period in DocketMath for timing rather than attempting to apply a different window based on case category. If the interface shows only one timing option (or no claim-type branching), use that general/default option.

4) Review computed results

After you submit (or after the tool updates live), the analyzer typically returns outputs based on how your offer amount and judgment amount compare and whether timing inputs satisfy the modeled statutory structure. Common output elements include:

• a comparison outcome (for example, whether the result is treated as “more favorable” vs. “less favorable” depending on the offer vs. judgment relationship),
• potential fee/expense-shift implications modeled under the statute’s framework,
• and sometimes a timeline validation check if you entered relevant timing dates.

Because the tool computes from your entered amounts, small changes to the offer or judgment inputs can flip the modeled comparison. If your result seems surprising, revisit the numbers first—especially the judgment figure you entered.

5) Iterate with “what-if” adjustments

A practical way to understand sensitivity is to run multiple scenarios with small changes. For example:

• Scenario A: set the offer amount slightly below your expected judgment range
• Scenario B: set the offer amount slightly above your expected judgment range

This helps you see where the modeled outcome changes. In many analyses, the “flip point” happens when the judgment moves from one side of the offer to the other.

6) Export or save your analysis (if available)

If DocketMath provides a save/export feature, use it. At minimum, keep a note (in your case file or spreadsheet) that captures:

• the offer amount
• the judgment amount
• and any timing fields you entered (or confirmed as using the general/default period)

That way, when facts or settlement assumptions change, you can rerun scenarios quickly without losing your original assumptions.

Common pitfalls

Here are the most common reasons Offer Of Judgment Analyzer results don’t match expectations when using DocketMath for South Carolina:

• Using the wrong jurisdiction

  • Double-check the tool shows South Carolina (US-SC). If it’s set elsewhere, DocketMath may apply a different offer-of-judgment framework than S.C. Code Ann. § 15-35-500.

• Forgetting timing should use the general/default period

  • In this guide, the key note is: no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found, so rely on the general/default period shown in DocketMath.
  • If the interface only offers one timing option (or no claim-type selection), don’t try to apply a different timing window.

• Entering an “estimated judgment” that doesn’t match the comparison baseline

  • The tool’s comparison is between offer and judgment (or the judgment figure you enter). If you use a partial ruling, interim order amount, or a different baseline than what you intend to compare, the tool can produce misleading conclusions.

• Formatting inputs incorrectly

  • If the tool expects a numeric value, enter numbers accordingly (for example, 50000 instead of $50k). Inconsistent formatting can lead to errors or unintended parsing.

• Changing optional assumptions between scenarios

  • If there are optional toggles (for instance, including certain categories/costs/interest), keep them the same when doing Scenario A vs. Scenario B. Otherwise, differences may reflect assumption changes rather than the offer-vs-judgment comparison.

• Treating the tool as a guarantee

  • DocketMath is a modeling aid. It can help you understand statutory mechanics and how the math might work, but it doesn’t replace a case-specific analysis of enforceability, compliance, or validity.

Try it

Use this quick test run to confirm the South Carolina configuration behaves as expected.

Open the Offer Of Judgment Analyzer calculator and follow the steps above: Run the calculator.

If an assumption is uncertain, document it alongside the calculation so the result can be re-run later.

Quick test checklist

Make two runs to see the flip point

1. Run 1: Set the offer slightly below your judgment amount.
2. Run 2: Set the offer slightly above your judgment amount.

If everything is set correctly, the tool’s output should change when the judgment crosses from one side of the offer comparison to the other.

What to look for in the output

• Whether the tool indicates the modeled result is more favorable or less favorable based on your inputs
• Whether any timeline validation message appears (if timing fields are included)
• The final modeled summary tied to S.C. Code Ann. § 15-35-500’s general offer-of-judgment framework

For context, the statute begins with the general authorization:

• S.C. Code Ann. § 15-35-500 (general rule; civil actions; offer may be made by a party to another party claiming damages)
  https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t15c035.php

If the calculator provides breakdowns, use them to identify which input most influenced the result (rather than treating it as a black box).

Related reading

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