## Facts

- David and Francine Krathen purchased a BMW automobile for $26,534.13 (deferred payment price $32,501.88).
- The Krathens alleged the vehicle had a persistent front-end “shimmy” that could not be corrected.
- They sued BMW of North America, Inc. and Volkswagen South, Inc. (d/b/a BMW South) for breach of express and implied warranties under the UCC and for violations of the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act.
- During litigation, defendants served a written offer of judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442: $20,500 “plus reasonable attorneys fees and costs heretofore accrued.”
- The offer contained no written condition requiring the Krathens to return the vehicle.
- The Krathens accepted the offer “as written,” and the clerk entered judgment for $20,500 plus reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
- Defendants moved to “clarify” the offer and vacate the clerk’s judgment (seeking to add a vehicle-return condition) or, alternatively, sought relief from judgment under Rule 1.540 based on mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect by counsel.
- The trial court denied both motions, and defendants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a court may “clarify” or rewrite an unambiguous Rule 1.442 offer of judgment to include an unstated condition precedent (return of the automobile).
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Rule 1.540 relief where defendants claimed a unilateral drafting mistake by counsel omitted a vehicle-return condition.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the denial of both post-judgment motions.
- The Rule 1.442 offer was unambiguous and enforceable as written; the court would not add an implied vehicle-return condition.
- The trial court acted within its discretion in denying Rule 1.540 relief because counsel’s omission was poor draftsmanship and not excusable neglect warranting relief for unilateral mistake.

## Legal Principles

- An unambiguous offer of judgment under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442 is interpreted by its plain language; courts will not consult pleadings or negotiations to supply omitted substantive terms.
- A judgment entered upon acceptance of a Rule 1.442 offer is treated like a consent judgment and is enforced according to its expressed terms.
- Rule 1.540 relief based on unilateral mistake is limited; negligence or careless drafting by counsel generally does not constitute “excusable neglect” justifying relief from a settlement judgment.
- Courts generally do not relieve parties from the consequences of their own litigation or drafting errors when the written settlement term is clear.

## Conclusion

Because the offer of judgment stated only a monetary amount plus fees and costs and omitted any requirement to return the vehicle, the judgment was enforced as written, and the defendants were not entitled to post-judgment modification or Rule 1.540 relief based on counsel’s unilateral drafting mistake.


BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Krathen, 471 So. 2d 585 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)