Cynthia J. Corwin (Martin) v. Rocky V. Corwin
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 8/28/09 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. ALABAMA COURT OF C I V I L APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2009 2080394 Cynthia J. Corwin (Martin) V. Rocky V. Corwin Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court (DR-89-556.02) THOMAS, Judge. This is the second time these parties have been before this court regarding the child-support arrearage owed by Rocky V. Corwin ("the father") to Cynthia J. Corwin (Martin) ("the mother") . See Corwin v. Corwin, 5 So. 3d 1278 (Ala. Civ. App. 2080394 2008). In Corwin, we reversed the trial court's judgment denying the mother's contempt petition, in which she sought the establishment of the child-support arrearage. Corwin, 5 So. 3d at 1281. Our instructions on remand were for the trial court to compute father. the child-support arrearage owed by the Id. On remand, the trial court entered a judgment computing the child-support arrearage owed by the father; the judgment determined that the father owed $2,300 in past-due child support, based on a 23-month period of nonpayment of his $100 per month child-support obligation. The mother filed a postjudgment motion in which she argued that the trial court had erred in failing to include interest in the calculation. The trial court denied the mother's motion, and she appealed.^ The mother argues on appeal that the trial court erred by failing to award her postjudgment interest on the child- support arrearage. ^The trial court's judgment specifically denied the father's request for a credit against the arrearage. In his brief, the father argues that he should be awarded a credit. However, because the father did not perfect a cross-appeal under Rule 4(a) (2), Ala. R. App. P., the issue is not properly before us and we will not consider his argument. Robicheaux V. Robicheaux, 731 So. 2d 1222, 1224 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998). 2 2080394 Alabama law requires that interest of 12 percent per year be applied to each installment of past-due child support. T.L.D. V. C.G., 849 So. 2d 200, 204 (citing Ala. Code 1975, ยง 8-8-10). jurisdiction over proceedings child-support judgment "'[A] trial court with to is without (Ala. Civ. App. 2002) enforce authority an earlier to waive the imposition of statutorily imposed postjudgment interest upon such payments.'" T.L.D., 849 So. 2d at 204 (quoting Walker v. Walker, 828 So. 2d 943, 945 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002)); see also State ex rel. Pritchett v. Pritchett, 771 So. 2d 1048, 1051 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000). "Under Alabama law, child-support payment 'installments become final judgments as of the date due.' Osborne v. Osborne, 57 Ala. App. 204, 206, 326 So. 2d 766, 767 (Ala. Civ. App. 1976) . Because 'judgments for the payment of money bear interest from the date of rendition' 'it follows that such [child-support] judgments would bear interest from due date.' Osborne, 57 Ala. App. at 206, 326 So. 2d at 767. Therefore, to properly calculate interest on an arrearage, one would have to compute the interest due on each installment from its due date. Id." Hollen V. Conley, 840 So. 2d 921, 924 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002). The trial court erred by failing to compute, as part of the total amount owed by the father, the appropriate amount of postjudgment interest on the child-support arrearage. 3 We 2080394 therefore reverse the judgment, and we remand the cause with instructions that the trial court properly compute the father's child-support arrearage, including the statutorily mandated interest on each past-due installment. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, concur. P.J., and Pittman, Bryan, and Moore, JJ. ,
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
