 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Greenwald v. Ford Motor Co.5/27/1999
if accepted by the plaintiff, as there would be no determination of the specific award made to each beneficiary. Because Ford's offer did not fully comply with the required specificity of the rule, it was not a valid Rule 68 offer, and Ford cannot benefit from the rule. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's refusal to grant Rule 68 sanctions.
Ford also argues that the amount of the offer would have been consumed by plaintiff's legal fees. Therefore, according to Ford, it did not need to apportion the offer because there would have been no money to divide among the beneficiaries. Ford provides no legal authority for its position nor do we find any authority in the language of the rule. For these reasons, we do not find that the specificity of the offer was excused because of the amount of legal fees incurred by the plaintiff.
In addition, Ford asserts that Greenwald never objected to the form of the offer. However, the burden is not on the offeree to determine whether the offer meets the requirements of Rule 68 but rather on the offeror. See DeMars v. LaPour, 366 N.W.2d 891, 895 (Wis. 1985) (where offer of judgment is deficient, offeree need not ask that offer be restated with more specificity). Therefore, we do not find that the offeree waived the requirements of Rule 68.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the trial court is affirmed.
JON W. THOMPSON, Presiding Judge
CONCURRING: JEFFERSON L. LANKFORD, Judge E.G. NOYES, JR., Judge
|