What this calculator does

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

DocketMath’s Offer of Judgment Analyzer (Maryland) helps you estimate the financial consequences of an offer of judgment under Md. Rule 2-132 and the related fee-shifting statute, Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 11-110. In plain terms, it compares your offer amount to the eventual judgment and models how costs (and, in many cases, post-offer expenses) can change depending on whether the offer was more favorable than the outcome.

This guide focuses on the Maryland mechanics reflected in:

• Md. Rule 2-132 (civil procedure rule for offers to settle)
• Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 11-110 (costs/fee exposure tied to offer acceptance vs. rejection)

Core concept: “more favorable” drives costs

Under Md. Rule 2-132, a party may file a written offer to settle for a specified amount or specified relief. The rule includes the key consequence language:

• Md. Rule 2-132(b): If the judgment is less favorable than the offer, the rejecting party may be liable for costs incurred after the offer.

The analyzer’s job is to turn that rule into an understandable numbers-based comparison.

What the calculator typically needs (inputs)

To produce a useful estimate, DocketMath’s analyzer generally asks for inputs like:

• Offer amount (or the monetary equivalent of the specified relief)
• Judgment amount the court entered (the final figure to compare to the offer)
• Date the offer was served/filed (so the “after the offer” window can be estimated)
• Estimated costs after the offer (or, if you don’t have them yet, you can model ranges)

Because costs calculations can be fact-specific, the output is best treated as an estimate—not a guarantee.

When to use it

Use DocketMath’s Offer of Judgment Analyzer when you’re trying to answer practical “what if” questions about timing and leverage in a Maryland civil case governed by Md. Rule 2-132.

Consider running it when:

• You received (or are preparing) an offer of judgment and want to understand how Md. Rule 2-132(b) could shift post-offer costs if the eventual judgment comes in worse for the rejecting party.
• You’re evaluating whether to accept an offer based on likely outcomes and expected litigation expenses.
• You want to model multiple outcomes (e.g., judgment at $40,000 vs. $60,000) and see where the costs exposure threshold changes.
• You need a quick way to explain to a team (or client) why the offer date and the comparison to the judgment matter under Maryland’s framework.

A common decision point: rejecting an offer that turns out “more favorable”

The critical comparison is simple but powerful: if the judgment is less favorable than the offer, then Md. Rule 2-132(b) creates potential exposure for costs incurred after the offer for the rejecting party.

That makes the calculator most useful when you can estimate:

• the likely final judgment range, and
• your expected post-offer cost range (filing fees, transcript costs, deposition costs, and other allowable items—depending on what’s actually recoverable under the applicable Maryland scheme).

Step-by-step example

Below is a concrete Maryland-style walkthrough. This is a planning example for how to use the analyzer to understand the Rule 2-132(b) consequence.

Scenario: Offer made, case tried, judgment comes in below the offer

Assume you’re the defendant and you file an offer:

• Offer amount: $75,000
• Offer date: March 1, 2026
• Estimated post-offer costs (through judgment): $18,000
• Final judgment entered: $60,000

Step 1: Enter the offer amount and judgment amount

In DocketMath’s analyzer:

• Offer amount: 75,000
• Judgment amount: 60,000

Step 2: Enter the offer date (for “after the offer” modeling)

• Offer date: 2026-03-01

This matters because the rule’s effect is keyed to costs incurred after the offer under Md. Rule 2-132(b).

Step 3: Estimate post-offer costs

• Estimated costs incurred after the offer: 18,000

If you don’t know the number yet, use a range and rerun:

• Low: $10,000
• Mid: $18,000
• High: $30,000

Step 4: Review the comparison logic

The analyzer will identify that:

• Judgment ($60,000) is less favorable than the offer ($75,000).

That triggers the key consequence pathway described in Md. Rule 2-132(b): the rejecting party may be liable for costs incurred after the offer.

Step 5: Interpret the output as an estimate of post-offer exposure

If the analyzer’s estimate uses your input of $18,000 in post-offer costs, your modeled exposure is essentially the amount of post-offer costs (subject to whatever the court ultimately recognizes as taxable/recoverable costs).

Example output snapshot (conceptual)

Common scenarios

Maryland offer-of-judgment disputes tend to cluster around a few recurring patterns. Here’s how the analyzer can help you model them.

1) Judgment beats the offer

Inputs

• Offer: $50,000
• Judgment: $62,500

Analyzer outcome concept

• Since the judgment is more favorable than the offer, the specific Rule 2-132(b) consequence for “judgment less favorable than the offer” shouldn’t be triggered in the same way (the analyzer will reflect that your scenario is not the “worse-than-offer” pattern).

Why it matters

• The rejecting party isn’t facing the same “post-offer costs due to worse judgment” pathway that applies when judgment is less favorable than the offer.

2) Judgment equals the offer

Inputs

• Offer: $80,000
• Judgment: $80,000

Analyzer outcome concept

• Equality typically means there is no “less favorable” result. The analyzer should treat the comparison as neutral for the Rule 2-132(b) “less favorable” trigger.

Practical use

• Run this scenario to see how sensitive the result is to small judgment changes (for example, $79,900 vs. $80,000).

3) Two offers, different dates

If there are multiple offers, you may want to run separate comparisons:

• Offer A (earlier) vs. eventual judgment
• Offer B (later) vs. eventual judgment

Because Md. Rule 2-132(b) focuses on “costs incurred after the offer,” later offers can create different post-offer windows.

4) Offers tied to specified relief (not just money)

Md. Rule 2-132 allows offers for:

• a specified dollar amount, or
• specified relief.

If your offer is relief-based, you can still model it by assigning a monetary equivalent for comparison (using damages valuation assumptions). DocketMath can help you run the numbers, but the accuracy depends on how you translate relief into a comparable amount.

5) Costs modeling: ranges beat one guessed number

Costs exposure can swing based on how the case unfolds after the offer date. Instead of a single number, use a range:

• Low post-offer costs: $8,000
• Mid: $15,000
• High: $25,000

Then compare across judgment outcomes:

• Judgment $40,000
• Judgment $55,000
• Judgment $70,000 (close to the offer)

This produces a quick “risk map” showing where your exposure likely becomes most significant.

Tips for accuracy

To get better outputs from DocketMath’s Offer of Judgment Analyzer, focus on inputs that directly align with the Maryland rule trigger.

Match the judgment figure to the final entered amount

The comparison should use the final judgment amount entered by the court that ends the matter (or the operative judgment figure you’re treating as the “judgment” for comparison).

Checklist:

Use offer dates that reflect the operative “offer” event

Md. Rule 2-132(b) keys the consequence to costs incurred after the offer. That means your “after the offer” window should begin at the relevant offer date.

Checklist:

Related reading

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