McGinnis v. Cox
| Citation | 465 S.W.3d 157 |
| Decision Date | 31 October 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. M2014-00102-COA-R3-CV,M2014-00102-COA-R3-CV |
| Parties | Kaitlyn Alexis McGINNIS, et al. v. Aubie L. COX, et al. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Joshua G. Offutt and J. Ross Hutchison, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellants, Kaitlyn Alexis McGinnis, b/n/f, Chad McGinnis and Chad McGinnis.
Jay R. McLemore, Brentwood, Tennessee, for the appellees, Aubie L. Cox, Rodney Cox, and Haley Cox.
Plaintiffs presented Defendants with an offer of judgment pursuant to Rule 68 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Prior to Defendants' acceptance, Plaintiffs attempted to rescind the offer. Defendants nevertheless accepted the offer within the time allowed by Rule 68 and attempted to enforce the offer of judgment. The trial court concluded that Plaintiffs were not entitled to revoke the offer of judgment and entered an order granting the motion to enforce the judgment. We affirm and remand.
On December 7, 2012, Plaintiffs/Appellants Kaitlyn Alexis McGinnis, b/n/f Chad McGinnis, and Chad McGinnis, individually (together, “Appellants”) filed a complaint for damages against the Defendants/Appellees Aubie L. Cox, Rodney Cox, and Haley Cox (“Appellees”) regarding injuries sustained in an automobile accident. No answer to the complaint was ever filed. Thereafter, on or around March 8, 2013, Appellants extended an offer of judgment in the amount of $784,641.55 or the policy limits of the applicable insurance policy to Appellees. The offer of judgment specifically referenced that it was made pursuant to Rule 68 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, and there is no dispute that the offer constituted a valid offer of judgment governed by Rule 68.
The offer of judgment tracked the language of Rule 68 and was conditioned upon acceptance within ten days after service, providing that “at the expiration of which ten (10) days the Offer [would be] withdrawn.” Although the certificate of service indicated that it was served on March 8, 2013, the mailing envelope was not post-marked until March 12, 2013. Appellees' counsel received the offer on March 13, 2013. There is no dispute that the parties' counsel spoke on March 15, 2013, and agreed to forgo the deadline due to the mailing issues. That afternoon, however, Appellants' counsel notified the Appellees' counsel, via facsimile, that the offer of judgment was revoked. The Appellants also filed a “Notice of Withdrawal of Offer of Judgment” in the trial court on March 15, 2013. It is undisputed that the basis of the revocation was that Mr. McGinnis “changed his mind” and wished to proceed to trial.
After receiving the revocation, however, Appellees replied by facsimile that they accepted the offer of judgment, in the amount of the policy limits of $100,000.00.1 The written notice to Appellants' counsel purportedly accepting the offer of judgment also occurred on March 15, 2013, well-within ten days of both the date on the certificate of service and the date the offer was received by Appellees.
On March 18, 2013, Appellees filed a notice of acceptance of the offer in the trial court. On June 14, 2013, the Appellees filed a Motion to Enforce the Offer of Judgment, arguing that the Appellants were not entitled to revoke the offer of judgment. The Appellants objected to the offer of judgment's enforcement. The trial court granted the motion to enforce the offer of judgment on December 5, 2013, finding that the Appellants were not entitled to revoke their offer of judgment prior to the expiration of the ten-day period, as to do so would “render the Rule largely meaningless and undermine its utility.” The Appellants filed a timely notice of appeal.
This case involves only a single issue: Whether a Rule 68 offer of judgment may be revoked by the offeror within the ten-day time period for acceptance on the basis that the offeror “changed his mind”?
This is an issue of first impression in our Court. However, because the clear weight of authority among our Sister States and in the federal courts supports the conclusion that a Rule 68 offer of acceptance generally may not be revoked within the time allowed for acceptance pursuant to the Rule, we likewise hold that the revocation in this case was not effective, and that the Appellees timely and properly accepted the offer of judgment within the time allowed by Rule 68.
As previously discussed, there is no dispute that the offer in this case is governed by Rule 68 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the issue in this case requires us to interpret a rule of civil procedure. Our Supreme Court has indicated that when interpreting a rule of civil procedure, we must apply “the same principles of statutory construction and the same standard of review,” as required when interpreting a statute. In re Baby, 447 S.W.3d 807, 818 (Tenn.2014) (citing Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., 356 S.W.3d 889, 895 (Tenn.2011) ). Thus, we review the trial court's conclusions de novo, with no presumption of correctness. State v. Edmondson, 231 S.W.3d 925, 927 (Tenn.2007). According to the Tennessee Supreme Court:
When interpreting statutes [and rules], our primary function is to carry out legislative intent without broadening the statute beyond its intended scope. Houghton v. Aramark Educ. Res., Inc., 90 S.W.3d 676, 678 (Tenn.2002). When a statute is clear, courts simply apply the plain meaning without complicating the task. Eastman Chem. Co. v. Johnson, 151 S.W.3d 503, 507 (Tenn.2004). “When a statute [or rule] is ambiguous, however, we may reference the broader statutory scheme, the history of the legislation, or other sources.” Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Morgan, 263 S.W.3d 827, 836 (Tenn.2008). We must presume that every word in a statute has meaning and purpose and should be given full effect so long as the obvious intention of the General Assembly is not violated by doing so. In re C.K.G., 173 S.W.3d 714, 722 (Tenn.2005) (quoting Marsh v. Henderson, 221 Tenn. 42, 424 S.W.2d 193, 196 (1968) ). “[A] construction which places one statute in conflict with another is to be avoided, and we must endeavor to resolve any possible conflict between statutes in favor of each other in order to provide a harmonious operation of laws.” Lovlace v. Copley, 418 S.W.3d 1, 20 (Tenn.2013) (Graham v. Caples, 325 S.W.3d 578, 582 (Tenn.2010) ).
We begin with the language of Rule 68 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure :
At any time more than 10 days before the trial begins, a party defending against a claim may serve upon the adverse party an offer to allow judgment to be taken against the defending party for the money or property, or to the effect specified in the offer, with costs then accrued. Likewise a party prosecuting a claim may serve upon the adverse party an offer to allow judgment to be taken against that adverse party for the money or property or to the effect specified in the offer with costs then accrued. If within 10 days after service of the offer the adverse party serves written notice that the offer is accepted, either party may file the offer and notice of acceptance, together with proof of service thereof, with the court and thereupon judgment shall be rendered accordingly. An offer not accepted shall be deemed withdrawn and evidence thereof is not admissible except in a proceeding to determine costs. If the judgment finally obtained by the offeree is not more favorable than the offer, the offeree shall pay all costs accruing after the making of the offer. The fact that an offer is made but not accepted does not preclude a subsequent offer.
Nothing in the express language above directly concerns the revocability of a Rule 68 offer of judgment within the ten-day period for acceptance. Appellants argue that because the plain language of Rule 68 does not contain a non-revocation clause, a Rule 68 offer of judgment is revocable pursuant to traditional contract principles. In contrast, the Appellees argue that because the language of Rule 68 does not provide for revocation of an offer of judgment within the ten-day period, revocation is not permitted. A statute or rule is ambiguous if it is “susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation.” Memphis Hous. Auth. v. Thompson, 38 S.W.3d 504, 512 (Tenn.2001) (citing Carter v. State, 952 S.W.2d 417, 419 (Tenn.1997) ). In this case, because the plain language of Rule 68 does not indicate whether a Rule 68 offer of judgment is revocable or non-revocable, we conclude that Rule 68 is ambiguous in this regard. C.f. Sonnenburg v. Grohskopf, 144 Wis.2d 62, 422 N.W.2d 925, 926–27 (Wis.Ct.App.1988) (). When a statute is determined to be ambiguous, the court may then “consider matters beyond the statutory text, including public policy, historical facts relevant to the enactment of the statute, the background and purpose of the statute, and the entire statutory scheme.” Mills v. Fulmarque, Inc., 360 S.W.3d 362, 368 (Tenn.2012) (citing Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 527–28 (Tenn.2010) ). Accordingly, we turn to consider other sources to illuminate this issue.
Appellants first argue that Rule 68 should be governed by traditional contract principles, which maintain that an offer not supported by consideration may be revoked at any time prior to acceptance. Indeed, “[i]t is elementary contract law that an offer not supported by consideration may be revoked at any time prior to its acceptance.” State v. Turner, 713 S.W.2d 327, 330 (Tenn.Crim.App.1986) ; see also Mason v. Capitol Records, Inc., No. 01A01–9807–CH–00389, 1999 WL 976614, at *5 (Tenn.Ct.App.1999) (citing Coate v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huggins v. McKee
... ... Instead, [w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. , 475 U.S. at 586, 106 S.Ct. at 1356 500 S.W.3d 371 (cited favorably in Rye ); see also McGinnis v. Cox , 465 S.W.3d 157, 164 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014), appeal denied (Feb. 12, 2015) (Decisions of federal courts construing rules that are substantially similar to our own are highly persuasive. ). We conclude that there is no genuine dispute regarding Mr. Huggins's capital contribution that ... ...
- Williams v. Smith
-
Cruce v. Memmex Inc.
... ... (quoting Anderson , 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S. Ct. 2505); see also McGinnis v ... Cox , 465 S.W.3d 157, 164 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014) ("Decisions of federal courts construing rules that are substantially similar to our own are 'highly persuasive.'"). Our analysis is therefore guided by the standard adopted by the Tennessee Supreme Court in Rye rather than Tennessee's prior ... ...
-
King v. Kelly
... ... On October 26, 2015, Appellee filed a motion to stay the entry of judgment and instead, to enforce the first offer of judgment in the amount of $7,195.00.The trial court held a hearing on November 13, 2015. At the hearing, Appellants argued that based upon our holding in McGinnis v. Cox, 465 S.W.3d 157 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014), the first offer of judgment could not be revoked by the Appellee within the ten-day period for acceptance. Because Appellants accepted both offers of judgment within ten days of their initial offer, Appellants contended that both offers were valid and ... ...