from the Tipton Circuit Court The Honorable Thomas R. Lett,
Judge Trial Court Cause No. 80C01-9812-DR-309
Attorney for Appellant Dan J. May Kokomo, Indiana
of the Case
Jill McKibben ("Wife") appeals the trial
court's order denying her request for post-judgment
interest on child support arrearage that William Kaiser
("Husband") owes to her. Wife raises one issue for
our review, namely, whether the trial court erred as a matter
of law when it failed to award her post-judgment interest
pursuant to Indiana Code Section 24-4.6-1-101.
We reverse and remand with instructions.
and Procedural History
Wife and Husband have two children together. On December 7,
2011, the trial court issued an order in which it found that
Husband owed Wife $7, 677.19 in child support arrearage. On
November 26, 2012, the trial court terminated Husband's
support obligation for both children, retroactive to July 11,
2012, but found that Husband was still $7, 056.40 in arrears.
Husband made one payment of $175 on November 18, 2013, which
left a balance due to Wife in the amount of $6, 881.40.
On October 5, 2017, Wife filed a motion for enforcement of
child support. In that motion, Wife requested that the trial
court make a finding as to the amount of the arrearage and to
assess interest in the amount of one and one-half percent per
month. On January 26, 2018, following an evidentiary hearing,
trial court found that Husband owes Wife $6, 881.40 in child
support arrearage. But the trial court denied Wife's
request for interest citing the fact that the children are
emancipated and that Wife had waited five years to attempt to
collect the arrearage. Wife then filed a motion to correct
error, which the trial court denied. This appeal ensued.
Wife contends that the trial court erred when it failed to
award her post-judgment interest. Initially, we note that
Husband did not file an appellee's brief.
When an appellee fails to file a brief, we apply a less
stringent standard of review. We are under no obligation to
undertake the burden of developing an argument for the
appellee. We may, therefore, reverse the trial court if the
appellant establishes prima facie error. "Prima
facie" is defined as "at first sight, on first
appearance, or on the face of it."
Deckard v. Deckard, 841 N.E.2d 194, 199 (Ind.Ct.App.
2006) (citations omitted).
Wife specifically contends that the trial court erred when it
failed to award her post-judgment interest on Husband's
child support arrearage pursuant to Indiana Code Section
24-4.6-1-101. We agree. Indiana Code Section 24-4.6-1-101
provides that, except as otherwise provided by statute,
"interest on judgments for money whenever rendered shall
be from the date of the return of the verdict or finding of