Allen v. Allen

Decision Date13 August 1993
Citation629 A.2d 1228
PartiesCorinne L. ALLEN v. Claude L. ALLEN, III.
CourtMaine Supreme Court

Corinne L. Allen, pro se.

Scott J. Lynch, Rocheleau, Fournier & Lebel, Lewiston, for defendant.

Before WATHEN, C.J., and ROBERTS, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD, COLLINS, RUDMAN and DANA, JJ.

GLASSMAN, Justice.

Claude Allen appeals from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (Oxford County, Bradford, J.) granting Corinne Allen's motion to determine the interest due on her judgment against Claude for arrearages due pursuant to the child support provisions of their divorce judgment. Claude contends that the trial court's interest calculation is supported by insufficient evidence and based on errors of law. Because we agree with Claude's contentions that the trial court erroneously employed incorrect and compound rates of interest in its calculation, we vacate the judgment. 1

In October 1970, the Allens secured a judgment of divorce providing that Claude pay to Corinne support and medical expenses for their minor children. In June 1990, Corinne filed a motion seeking arrearages due from Claude. By its order of May 21, 1991, the trial court entered a judgment granting Corinne's motion for arrearages in the amount of $11,195.38 plus interest in accordance with statute. Claude partially satisfied the judgment by paying Corinne for the arrearages, but because the parties could not agree, Corinne filed a motion seeking the court's determination of the amount of interest due. On May 13, 1992, the trial court granted Corinne's motion for interest in the amount of $35,392. In response to Claude's motion to amend the May 13 judgment, contending that the amount of interest had been improperly determined, the trial court issued an order directing Corinne to submit a recalculation of the interest owed by Claude. On October 9, 1992, the trial court entered a judgment providing that Corinne was entitled to $28,739 in interest on the May 21, 1991 judgment, and Claude appeals.

Claude first contends that the evidence supporting the trial court's interest determination, based on a schedule of arrearages that begins in February 1975, is insufficient because there is no evidence that any arrearages originated prior to May 1980. We will not disturb a trial court's finding of fact unless there is no competent evidence in the record to rationally support it. Greenstreet v. Brown, 623 A.2d 1270, 1272-73 (Me.1993). A review of the record discloses that Claude testified he began missing child support payments in 1975. In addition, Corinne introduced in evidence receipts for the children's medical expenses dated prior to 1980 and attested to the accuracy of the schedule she submitted depicting the amounts and dates of Claude's child support arrearages pursuant to the divorce judgment.

Claude next contends that the trial court erroneously applied the amendments to the statutory rate of post-judgment interest to the arrearages. We agree. The trial court erroneously varied the applicable rate of interest to arrearages that originated prior to the date on which the statutory amendments took effect. 2 We have previously stated that the "right to the payment of support becomes vested as it becomes due. Thus an order of child support is essentially a 'judgment in monthly installments....' " Carter v. Carter, 611 A.2d 86, 87 (Me.1992) (quoting Britton v. Britton, 100 N.M. 424, 671 P.2d 1135, 1139 (1983)). "Each payment [due pursuant to an order of support] becomes a judgment debt as of the due date." Id. Accordingly, each arrearage amount bears interest at the statutory rate in effect on the date of its origin, and that single, fixed rate of interest applies to the arrearage for the duration of the accrual of interest. See Ferry v. Ferry, 201 Neb. 595, 271 N.W.2d 450, 455 (1978) ("When the legal rate [of interest] changes, the new rate applies to all delinquent installments [that come due after] the effective date of the new rate").

Finally, Claude...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Brown v. Habrle., Docket No. Aro-10-13.
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 5 Agosto 2010
    ...findings to support that decision because the parties failed to file a transcript or statement in lieu thereof); Allen v. Allen, 629 A.2d 1228, 1230 (Me.1993) (discussing post-judgment interest due on child support arrearage, vacating only as to computation of such interest); Raymond v. Ray......
  • Tarbuck v. Jaeckel
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 30 Mayo 2000
    ...that interest awarded by this section shall be fully or partially waived. 14 M.R.S.A. § 1602-A (Supp.1999); see also Allen v. Allen, 629 A.2d 1228, 1230 (Me.1993) (noting that the right to payment of child support becomes vested as the support comes due and one fixed rate of interest applie......
  • Austin v. Austin
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 7 Abril 2000
    ...to her. III. POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST [¶ 8] A grant of post-judgment interest is based solely on statutory law. See Allen v. Allen, 629 A.2d 1228, 1230 (Me.1993); Ginn v. Penobscot Co., 342 A.2d 270, 276 (Me.1975). The controlling statute for post-judgment interest is 14 M.R.S.A. § 1602-A (Su......
  • Walsh v. Cusack
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 29 Abril 2008
    ...and we have previously found that Maine's post-judgment interest statute is applicable to child support arrearages. Allen v. Allen, 629 A.2d 1228, 1230, 1230 n. 2 (Me. 1993) (quotation marks omitted); see also Tarbuck v. Jaeckel, 2000 ME 105, ¶¶ 19-20, 752 A.2d 176, [¶ 5] As applied to a ju......
1 books & journal articles
  • Calculating Simple Interest on Delinquent Installment Judgments
    • United States
    • Maine State Bar Association Maine Bar Journal No. 07-2000, July 2000
    • Invalid date
    ...installment obligations are judgments in installments. Carter v. Carter, 611 A.2d 86, 88 (Me. 1992) (child support). See Allen v. Allen, 629 A.2d 1228, 1230 (Me. 1993) (alimony). Each installment that is not timely paid bears interest at the statutory rate of 15% per annum. 14 M.R.S.A §1602......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT