Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; March 23, 2000; Alabama; State Appellate Court
Cheryl Goree, on behalf of her son Brandon Trent, sued Becky Shirley, mother of Christopher Michael Shirley, for injuries resulting from an alleged negligent automobile accident caused by Christopher. On November 10, 1998, Shirley offered $4,000 to settle the case under Rule 68 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, which Goree did not accept within the 10-day period, leading to the automatic rejection of the offer. Goree later sought to declare Rule 68 unconstitutional, but the court denied her motion without a hearing on December 18, 1998. The case proceeded to trial, resulting in a jury verdict for Goree of $2,578 on June 16, 1999. Given that the jury's award was less than Shirley's offer, Shirley moved to tax costs against Goree. The court granted costs to Shirley for expenses incurred post-offer but ultimately ordered Goree to pay costs incurred by Shirley as the prevailing party. Goree appealed the decision, while Shirley cross-appealed regarding the costs assessment. The appellate court noted that the absence of Goree's motion details and the lack of a hearing prevented a proper evaluation of the constitutional issue raised by Goree, which they chose not to address. Shirley provided invoices for $711.37 in costs incurred after the offer was rejected.
Costs incurred in the legal proceedings included subpoena fees, medical and employment records, and deposition costs. The court designated costs to Shirley under Rule 54(d), Ala. R. Civ. P., since Goree was the prevailing party, but mandated that Goree pay the costs Shirley incurred in defending the action after rejecting the offer of judgment. Specifically, the court awarded Shirley only $15 of a $50 charge for copying employment payroll records and excluded a $139.25 charge for a deposition copy and a $15 charge for a travel transcript. Shirley contends that the court erred by not awarding the full $50 for payroll record copying and the $139.25 for the deposition. Furthermore, she argues against the court's decision to allocate costs incurred by Goree post-rejection of the offer of judgment.
According to Rule 54(d) and Rule 68, Ala. R. Civ. P., costs are typically awarded to the prevailing party unless otherwise directed. Rule 68 mandates that if an offeree rejects an offer but later receives a judgment less favorable than the offer, they must cover the costs incurred after the offer was made. In the case of Ennis v. Kittle, the appellate court ruled that the rejection of an offer of judgment leads to mandatory cost allocation, meaning the plaintiff cannot recover costs incurred after the offer and must pay the defendant's costs incurred after that date. The court clarified that this includes all necessary costs related to the defense, not limited to court costs alone. The appellate courts have recognized various expenses, including deposition and copying costs, as recoverable. The costs Shirley incurred for payroll records and the deposition copy were deemed recoverable by a defendant in light of the rejection of an offer of judgment.
Costs incurred by Shirley for obtaining payroll records ($50) and deposition copies ($139.25) were deemed necessary expenses in defending the action, leading to the conclusion that the court erred by not awarding these costs. Under Rule 68, once a plaintiff rejects an offer of judgment, they cannot recover certain costs. Thus, the court was correct in taxing costs incurred by Goree, as long as those costs were incurred before the rejection date of the offer of judgment. The judgment is affirmed in part but reversed concerning the taxation of costs, with instructions for the trial court to enter an order consistent with this opinion. Judge Robertson's special concurrence emphasizes that the ruling in Ennis v. Kittle does not allow defendants to shift every expense incurred post-offer of judgment, noting that the trial court retains discretion to determine which costs are properly taxable under Rule 54(d). Additionally, substantial costs should have prior court approval to ensure they are reasonable and necessary. The complaint involved "Becky Shirley" acting as guardian ad litem for her son Christopher, and a motion to supplement the appeal record by Goree was denied due to untimeliness, while Shirley's motion to strike Goree's appendix was granted.
