Price v. Price
| Decision Date | 01 November 1971 |
| Citation | 3 Pack 539,225 Tenn. 539,472 S.W.2d 732 |
| Parties | , 225 Tenn. 539 Betty Barthine PRICE, Appellant, v. Noble Ray PRICE, Appellee. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Wayne S. Taylor, James R. Omer, Nashville, for appellant.
Harold Howser, Gallatin, for appellee.
This case presents the issue of whether the decree awarding a judgment in an amount certain for alimony in solido, but payable in installments, bears interest either by proper construction of the language of the decree, or as a matter of statutory law from date of entry. Jurisdiction upon appeal is properly in this Court, the facts being stipulated.
On July 23, 1969, appellant, Betty Barthine Price, was awarded an absolute divorce from appellee, Noble Ray Price. The decree awarding alimony in solido, containing the following language, is now in dispute:
Further, Complainant, Betty Barthine Price, is awarded a judgment against Defendant, Noble Ray Price, in the amount of $133,980.33 and to secure the same a lien is impressed upon the note payable to defendant deposited with Jordan Stokes, III, attorney, and also upon the Trust Fund deposited with Commerce Union Bank to secure payment of the note, and payments upon the aforesaid judgment will be paid in equal installments as the note payments are made the payment being one-half (1/2) the yearly payment due upon the amount of $38,290.09, and in addition one-half (1/2) the accrued interest payments * * * The parties agree the installments on this judgment were paid in full when due and as of July 2, 1971, the balance of the full amount of the judgment of $133,980.33 was paid. The only issue here is whether appellant is due interest.
The trial judge held:
The Court is of the opinion that the above language in the decree did not contemplate payment of interest on the $133,980.33, but provided instead for the payment on the judgment, one-half the accrued interest on the note in addition to the one-half yearly payment, which amount is set out in the decree. The Court further finds that the alimony in solido in the amount as hereinabove shown was payable at future dates in installments and in the manner shown in the decree and that the alimony award would draw interest only subsequent to nonpayment on the due date.
Appellant claims interest is due under the language of the decree above copied, construing this language in this manner; that her judgment was payable in equal installments with the dates the installments were due set as the same dates the installments were due on the note deposited with Jordan Stokes, III. That the amount of the installment payments were set as being one-half of the amount of the installment payment on the principal of the note deposited with Jordan Stokes, III, such being one-half of $38,280.09. That having made the payment of this judgment due in installments and fixed both the date and amount of installment in relation to the note beposited with Jordan Stokes, III, the decree said:
And in addition one-half the accrued interest payment * * *,
which language the appellant construes as follows:
That she was to receive this one-half accrued interest, being interest earned by the note deposited with Jordan Stokes, III, as interest on her judgment and not as a payment on the principal of her judgment.
We do not agree with appellant's construction of this language of the decree. First, under this decree appellant has been awarded alimony in solido, a judgment against appellee in the amount of $133,980.33. Secondly, for the purpose of securing the payment of this judgment, the court has impressed a lien upon a note owned by appellee and deposited with Jordan Stokes, III, and also a lien upon a trust fund in the Commerce Union Bank. Thirdly, the court has decreed this judgment be paid in equal installments, with the due date of the installments being set as the same date of the installments on the note deposited with Jordan Stokes, III. The court has decreed the amount of the installments be computed by taking one-half of the yearly installments of $38,280.09, due...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Swett v. Swett
...to pay post-judgment interest does not begin to accrue until the obligation to pay the judgment actually matures. Price v. Price, 225 Tenn. 539, 544, 472 S.W.2d 732, 734 (1971); Whiteside v. Whiteside, No. 03A01_9707_CV_00272, 1998 WL 237715, at *11 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 7,1998) (No Tenn. R. ......
-
Cela v. Cela
... ... pay support actually matures." Sanders , 2001 WL ... 1660715, at *5 (citing Price v. Price , 472 S.W.2d ... 732, 734 (Tenn. 1971)). Here, the trial court entered an ... order directing Wife to pay alimony in solido ... ...
-
Pledger v. Pledger
...judgment militated against an award of interest. Id. The Supreme Court of Tennessee considered an analogous issue in Price v. Price, 225 Tenn. 539, 472 S.W.2d 732 (1971). The issue before the Court was whether a decree awarding a lump sum judgment for alimony, payable in installments, bears......
-
Martin v. Martin, No. W2008-00015-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App. 2/24/2009)
...Ct. App. E.S. Jan. 13, 1998) (citing Inman v. Inman, 840 S.W.2d 927, 931 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992)). Husband correctly cites Price v. Price, 472 S.W.2d 732 (Tenn. 1971) for the notion that interest is not due on a judgment until the successful party is entitled to the use of the awarded. In Pri......