The moving party sought judgment in accordance with an offer to settle made by the responding party.
The responding party argued the offer was not a valid Rule 18 offer under the Family Law Rules because he had not signed it personally, although his counsel had signed it twice.
The court found that requiring strict compliance with the signature rule would be unjust, especially since the responding party authorized the offer and there had been partial compliance with its terms.
The motion for judgment was granted.
