Facts: When Mother and Father divorced in Kentucky, Father’s mental-health issues resulted in an agreement that his visitation with their child be “as agreed upon by the parties to be supervised at all times by [Father’s] parents.”

Because of the severity of Father’s mental illness, he was not ordered to pay child support “at the present time.” One year later, Father was approved for Social Security disability benefits, and he began paying a portion of his child-support obligation.

Several years later, Mother married Stepfather and moved to Tennessee.

One year later, Mother ended all contact between the child and Father’s parents, resulting in the cessation of Father’s parenting time.

Father petitioned to register the Kentucky divorce decree in Tennessee and change the parenting plan to receive supervised visitation every other weekend.

Mother responded with a separate action to terminate Father’s parental rights and have Stepfather adopt the child. After a trial, the termination action was dismissed on the merits.

Returning to the parenting-plan-modification matter, Mother requested an award of unpaid child support plus pre- and postjudgment interest.

The trial court modified the parenting plan as Father requested, modified Father’s child support as Mother requested, and awarded Mother a child-support arrearage judgment for $7672 to be paid in $100 monthly installments. The trial court denied Mother’s request for pre- and postjudgment interest, explaining that her own actions—namely her unsuccessful effort to terminate Father’s parental rights—caused a lengthy delay in the conclusion of the proceedings.

Mother appealed.

On Appeal: The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Mother argued the trial court erred in not awarding pre- and postjudgment interest on the child-support arrearage.

When enforcing a child-support order, Tennessee courts must apply the law of the “issuing state” to compute arrearages and the accrual of interest. Thus, Kentucky law applies to the accrual of interest on payments due under the Kentucky order, and Tennessee law applies to the accrual of interest on payments due under the Tennessee order.

Kentucky law. The Court found that Kentucky law requires pre- and postjudgment interest on child-support arrearages without exception:

In Kentucky, child-support recipients are entitled to prejudgment interest as a matter of law from the date that each payment was due. Prejudgment interest is limited to the rate of 8%. Accordingly, we find Mother was entitled to an award of prejudgment interest at the rate of 8% on unpaid support due under the Kentucky order, running from the date that each payment was due until the entry of the arrearage judgment.

Additionally, under Kentucky [law], a judgment for unpaid child-support payments shall bear 12% interest compounded annually from the date the judgment is entered. This language is mandatory. Thus, Mother is also entitled to postjudgment interest at the rate of 12% on the arrearage, compounded annually and running from the entry of the judgment.

The Court reversed the trial court’s denial of Mother’s request for pre-and postjudgment interest on payments due under the Kentucky child-support order.

Tennessee law. In Tennessee, prejudgment interest on unpaid child support is governed by Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-101, which provides that an award of prejudgment interest is within the trial court’s discretion for payments due after April 12, 2017.

Postjudgment interest is governed by Tennessee Code Annotated § 47-14-122, which provides that interest “shall be computed on every judgment” from the date the judgment was entered.

The Court found Mother was entitled to postjudgment interest but not prejudgment interest on the Tennessee child-support arrearage:

Pursuant to § 47-14-122, Mother was entitled to an award of postjudgment interest on this portion of the judgment.

Because the Tennessee order was not effective until December 2020, the trial court had discretion over whether to award prejudgment interest on payments due thereafter. The court declined to award interest because Mother’s “own actions caused a lengthy delay to the conclusion of the proceedings.” This decision was well within the trial court’s discretion, and Mother has provided no reason for us to disagree.

The Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Mother’s request for prejudgment interest and reversed its denial of postjudgment interest on the arrearage that accrued under the Tennessee order.

K.O.’s Comment: On other issues, Mother made arguments that the Court characterized as “inexplicable,” “incredible,” and “misses the forest for the trees.” Not surprisingly, those arguments were unpersuasive.

Grace v. Grace (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, September 13, 2022).

If you found this helpful, please share it using the buttons below.