Motion for costs under MCR 2.405(D); Whether the offers of judgment constituted “offers”; Knue v Smith; Applicability of McManus v Toler

The court held that “because the offers were not unconditional offers to stipulate to the entry of a judgment in a sum certain, the trial court did not err” in denying plaintiff-Petersen Financial’s motion for costs under MCR 2.405. But it urged “the Supreme Court to revisit the issue of whether MCR 2.405 can be applied to claims sounding in equity that cannot be resolved for a sum certain and instead require some other order declaring the rights of the parties.” Defendants relied on Knue “to argue that the offers were nonconforming under MCR 2.405 because” they contained language imposing “conditions in addition to an offer of judgment for a sum certain. The trial court found Knue to be controlling.” The court agreed. As “part of the 2017 offer, Petersen Financial offered to stipulate to an entry of a monetary judgment in favor of defendants of $100 in satisfaction of Count I of its complaint and a monetary judgment in favor of defendants of $150 in satisfaction of Count III of its complaint. However, it also included language requiring defendants to agree to the entry of a recordable order declaring that no additional amounts were due and that the ‘asserted recorded instruments’ were invalid against Petersen Financial’s property. Given the clear imposition of an additional condition, the trial court did not err by finding that the offer was nonconforming for purposes of MCR 2.405.” And under the terms of the 5/29/19 “offer of judgment, plaintiffs offered to stipulate to entry of judgment in favor of defendants in the amount of $30,000 in satisfaction of all of its claims against defendants. But, in a parenthetical, it added that [they] had to agree to extinguish ‘all asserted special assessments’ and to agree to the entry of a quiet title order in favor of Petersen Financial. Again, although [it] made an offer of judgment for a sum certain, it conditioned that offer upon defendants agreeing to the court’s entry of a quiet title order in Petersen Financial’s favor and their agreement to the extinguishment of the asserted special assessments. By conditioning acceptance of the offer on (1) an exchange of cash and (2) the defendants’ acceptance of a quiet title order entered in Petersen Financial’s favor, Petersen Financial did not make an offer for a sum certain under MCR 2.405.” While Petersen Financial directed the court to McManus, the court concluded that McManus did not apply here. Affirmed.