The applicant made an offer to settle all issues the week before first case conference, with prejudice. This included an expiry that stated that the offer expired when the case conference took place.
She included a clause that stated if the party accepted the offer and signed the SA with the terms the applicant would assume the costs for acquiring the divorce order. (since it would save the costs of conferences/trials, and made the offer much nicer)
The respondent did not accept the offer or sign the SA, but showed up at court without counsel, without filing an answer or even a conference brief. He was reprimanded by the judge and given 20 days to sign the SA or file an answer or the matters would proceed to uncontested trial without him. The costs were reserved.
Since then he has retained new counsel and made a counter offer. The respondent's new lawyer believe that since the applicant said she would assume the divorce order costs in the expired offer, she should still agree to pay them.
The applicant disagrees, especially since she already had to pay all of the fees for the court appearance and resulting paperwork.
The applicant's lawyer is angry and believes the respondent should pay these costs if he isn't going to be held accountable for the costs of the wasteful court appearances so far.
Another option would be to ignore the counter offer and force the respondent to comply with the court's order to sign or file an answer, though the offer was good aside from the discussion of costs.
Any thoughts?
She included a clause that stated if the party accepted the offer and signed the SA with the terms the applicant would assume the costs for acquiring the divorce order. (since it would save the costs of conferences/trials, and made the offer much nicer)
The respondent did not accept the offer or sign the SA, but showed up at court without counsel, without filing an answer or even a conference brief. He was reprimanded by the judge and given 20 days to sign the SA or file an answer or the matters would proceed to uncontested trial without him. The costs were reserved.
Since then he has retained new counsel and made a counter offer. The respondent's new lawyer believe that since the applicant said she would assume the divorce order costs in the expired offer, she should still agree to pay them.
The applicant disagrees, especially since she already had to pay all of the fees for the court appearance and resulting paperwork.
The applicant's lawyer is angry and believes the respondent should pay these costs if he isn't going to be held accountable for the costs of the wasteful court appearances so far.
Another option would be to ignore the counter offer and force the respondent to comply with the court's order to sign or file an answer, though the offer was good aside from the discussion of costs.
Any thoughts?
Comment