C.A. No. PC-2008-5888
Sup. Ct. R.I.Dec 7, 2011Background
- Defendant moves under Rule 60(b) to vacate a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment in favor of Plaintiff.
- Plaintiff and Rego pursued claims arising from a three-vehicle accident involving Defendant's vehicle; offers were made prior to arbitration.
- Arbitration awarded Plaintiff $40,000 and Rego $25,000 with statutory interest and costs; offers of $30,000 to Plaintiff and $80,000 to Rego were previously made.
- Defense counsel, on medical leave, authorized issuance of Rule 68 Offers based on outlines, but clerical error transposed the two amounts.
- Plaintiff accepted an Offer of Judgment for $80,000 intended for Rego; error undiscovered until November; defense sought to vacate after discovering the clerical mistake.
- Court finds no meeting of the minds due to the typographical error and grants vacatur of the Rule 68 judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clerical error in Rule 68 offer invalidates the contract | Plaintiff asserts offers were valid contracts once accepted; error should not nullify judgment. | Typographical error prevented mutual assent; no binding contract existed. | No valid contract formed; vacate judgment. |
| Whether there was meeting of the minds required for Rule 68 offers | Acceptance of the offer reflected intent to be bound. | Errors shown a lack of mutual assent due to swapped amounts. | No meeting of the minds; judgment vacated. |
| Whether excusable neglect and equities support vacating under Rule 60(b)(1) | No excusable neglect; defense should be bound by erroneous offer. | Clerical error and extenuating circumstances justify relief. | Excusable neglect shown; vacation granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitaker v. Associated Credit Servs., Inc., 946 F.2d 1222 (6th Cir. 1991) (typographical error defeats meeting of the minds for Rule 68)
- Opella v. Opella, 896 A.2d 714 (R.I. 2006) (contract formation requires mutual assent)
- Radecki v. Amoco Oil Co., 858 F.2d 397 (8th Cir. 1988) (contract principles govern Rule 68 offers)
- Greenwood v. Stevenson, 88 F.R.D. 225 (D.R.I. 1980) (mutual assent essential to settlement agreements)
- Mills v. Rhode Island Hosp., 828 A.2d 526 (R.I. 2003) ( Rhode Island cases on settlement and Rule 68-like considerations)
- RI Five v. Medical Assocs. of Bristol County, Inc., 668 A.2d 1250 (R.I. 1996) (interpreting contractual aspects of settlements in RI)
- Richardson v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 49 F.3d 760 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (Rule 68 pressures and inquiry into enforceability)
- Vitale v. Elliott, 120 R.I. 328, 387 A.2d 1379 (R.I. 1978) (excusable neglect considerations under Rule 60(b))
- Hall v. Ins. Co. of North America, 727 A.2d 667 (R.I. 1999) (federal guidance as to analogical interpretation of procedural rules)