How to calculate Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in North Dakota

Quick takeaways

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

• North Dakota’s offer-of-judgment rule is time-sensitive: an offer may be made “at any time before trial” under N.D. Cent. Code § 28-26-06.
• If the offer is not accepted and the offeree does not obtain a more favorable judgment, the offeree may be liable for costs incurred by the offeror from the date of the offer (§ 28-26-06).
• DocketMath’s Offer Of Judgment Analyzer helps you model a practical “what happens if” comparison using your inputs (e.g., offer amount, offer date, and an expected judgment amount under US-ND).
• This post applies the general/default period only: no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found, so the analyzer uses the statute’s general timing language (§ 28-26-06), namely “before trial.”

Inputs you need

Before you use DocketMath’s Offer Of Judgment Analyzer (US-ND), gather the inputs that determine whether the modeled outcome triggers the North Dakota cost-shifting consequence.

Use this intake checklist as your baseline for Offer Of Judgment Analyzer work in North Dakota.

• jurisdiction selection
• key dates and triggering events
• amounts or rates
• any caps or overrides

If any of these inputs are uncertain, document the assumption before you run the tool.

Checklist of inputs (typical)

• Option A: a single estimated total for costs after the offer date, or

  • Option B: a time-based estimate (e.g., monthly/weekly rate) converted into a range that starts on the offer date

How the rule maps to inputs (North Dakota)

• Timing requirement (“before trial”)
  North Dakota’s statute states: “[a]n offer of judgment may be made at any time before trial” (N.D. Cent. Code § 28-26-06).
  In the analyzer, this effectively becomes an assumption/validation concept: your offer date should correspond to a period before trial begins.

• Cost-shifting trigger
  The cost consequence applies only if:

  1. the offer is not accepted, and
  2. the offeree fails to obtain a more favorable judgment.

  If those conditions are met, the statute provides that the offeree is liable for “the costs incurred by the offeror from the date of the offer” (§ 28-26-06).
  That means your modeled cost number should represent costs from the offer date forward, not necessarily all litigation spend.

DocketMath setup suggestion

• Make sure your expected judgment amount reflects the judgment the analyzer compares against—typically the final result amount you believe the court would enter.
• If you’re unsure, run multiple scenarios by adjusting the judgment amount (and optionally your costs range) to see how sensitive the outcome is.

How the calculation works

DocketMath’s Offer Of Judgment Analyzer is built around the decision point created by N.D. Cent. Code § 28-26-06:

1. Was the offer made before trial?
   The statute provides: “[a]n offer of judgment may be made at any time before trial” (N.D. Cent. Code § 28-26-06).
   In practice, the analyzer can only model what you input. If your offer date is inconsistent with “before trial” under your assumptions, treat results as a scenario estimate, not a definitive compliance calculation.

2. Was the offer accepted?
   If accepted, the cost-shifting consequence described by the statute is not the same issue because the case (as to the offer) resolves.

3. If not accepted, did the offeree obtain a more favorable judgment?
   The statute’s key consequence is triggered when the offeree “does not accept the offer and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment.” Then the offeree is liable for the costs incurred by the offeror “from the date of the offer” (N.D. Cent. Code § 28-26-06).

4. Compute costs starting on the offer date
   Importantly, the statute is specific about the start point: costs are incurred by the offeror “from the date of the offer” (§ 28-26-06).
   In DocketMath, you’ll typically model this using:

   • a post-offer costs total, or
   • a post-offer time period × an estimated cost rate, translated into a range starting at the offer date.

Default timing rule used (and why)

Some jurisdictions split offer rules into claim-type or procedural sub-periods. Here, no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found in the materials used for this guide, so the calculation relies on the general/default period expressed in § 28-26-06: an offer may be made “at any time before trial.”

Simple decision table (conceptual)

Because “more favorable” depends on whose side benefits, the analyzer’s direction can flip if you reverse roles:

Common pitfalls

Watch for these common modeling mistakes when using Offer Of Judgment Analyzer (US-ND):

• Using an offer date that doesn’t reflect “before trial”
  The statute’s plain timing language is “at any time before trial” (§ 28-26-06). If you input a date after trial begins (based on your assumptions), the model can produce misleading results.

• Mixing up offeror/offeree roles
  The statute places the potential cost consequence on the offeree if the trigger conditions are met. If you map roles incorrectly in DocketMath, “more favorable judgment” may be evaluated from the wrong side.

• Treating “costs” as everything up to the judgment
  Under § 28-26-06, the statute focuses on costs incurred by the offeror “from the date of the offer.” Don’t use total costs-to-date unless your number is actually limited to post-offer costs.

• Comparing the wrong judgment figure
  The trigger depends on failing to obtain a more favorable judgment. If you use an interim or partial number instead of the judgment amount you believe the court ultimately enters, you may misestimate whether the “more favorable” condition is met.

• Relying on a single-point estimate
  Since the outcome depends on comparison (“more favorable” vs. not), it’s often more practical to run scenario ranges (e.g., judgment outcomes below, near, and above the offer).

Example pitfall to avoid: entering your total litigation spend to date as “post-offer costs.” If that figure includes costs incurred before the offer date, it may not align with § 28-26-06’s “from the date of the offer” limitation.

Sources and references

• N.D. Cent. Code § 28-26-06 (Offer of judgment; cost consequences)
  https://www.ndlegis.gov/cencode/T28C26.pdf
  Key quoted language used in this guide (summary):

  “An offer of judgment may be made at any time before trial… If the offeree does not accept the offer and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, the offeree is liable for the costs incurred by the offeror from the date of the offer…”

• DocketMath tool: Offer Of Judgment Analyzer (US-ND)
  /tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer

Next steps

1. Open the analyzer: /tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer.
2. Enter your inputs:

   • Offer amount
   • Offer date
   • Expected judgment amount (or the final judgment if you’re reviewing after the fact)
   • Role mapping (offeror vs. offeree) so “more favorable” is applied correctly
   • Costs from the offer date forward (either a total or time-based estimate converted into a range)
3. Run at least 3 scenarios:

   • Judgment below the offer
   • Judgment around the offer (borderline)
   • Judgment above the offer
4. Recheck the core assumptions:

   • The offer date should be before trial per § 28-26-06.
   • Your “costs” should start at the offer date, consistent with “from the date of the offer.”
5. Use the output to inform strategy discussions (rather than treating it as a guarantee).

Related reading

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