Opinion ID: 2380052
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Calculation of Amount of Interest Due

Text: [¶ 7] As applies to this issue, the order appealed from decided post-judgment motions filed by a judgment creditor and a judgment debtor. Post-judgment enforcement and execution proceedings are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and are reviewed on appeal only for an abuse of discretion. Burnett v. Steeley, 2008 WY 94, ¶ 16, 190 P.3d 132, 135-36 (Wyo. 2008); Woods v. Wells Fargo Bank Wyoming, 2004 WY 61, ¶ 19, 90 P.3d 724, 731 (Wyo.2004). [¶ 8] Husband complains that he should not be required to pay interest from the date of the judgment for a variety of reasons. His first claim is that no specific date for payment was included in the initial divorce decree. Thus, he could not have known the payment was due on the day of the decree. This argument ignores the application of § 1-16-102, dealing with interest on judgments: (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, all decrees and judgments for the payment of money shall bear interest at ten percent (10%) per year from the date of rendition until paid. (b) If the decree or judgment is founded on a contract and all parties to the contract agreed to interest at a certain rate, the rate of interest on the decree or judgment shall correspond to the terms of the contract. (c) A periodic payment or installment for child support or maintenance which is unpaid on the date due and which on or after July 1, 1990, becomes a judgment by operation of law pursuant to W.S. 14-2-204 shall not bear interest. Obviously neither exception (b) or (c) apply. Thus, the statute clearly requires payment from the date of rendition. There is no ambiguity. A district court must expressly set a different date for payment of a judgment in order to override the application of this statute. As applies to the instant case, the district court did not set a different time frame for payment. Thus, § 1-16-102 applied automatically to require payment as of the date of rendition of the decree. [2] [¶ 9] Husband next declares that the district court eventually set November 17, 2009, as the date for him to comply with the divorce decree. Thus, he argues, at the very least interest charges should not begin until then. Husband takes the November 17 date out of context. The date comes from the district court's order generated in response to the parties' respective motions for orders to show cause. The date of November 17 was set as the date for Husband's performance in order to avoid being held in contempt of court. In no way did the date modify the requirements of the initial divorce decree. [¶ 10] Husband moves on to argue he had no funds accessible to him to make the required payment to Wife because of Wife's garnishment of his accounts. This argument is especially specious because Husband, at all times, had the ability to execute appropriate paperwork to release the funds to Wife, thus releasing the garnishments. Indeed, in response to the order appealed from in the instant action, Husband executed a Letter of Authorization to Smith Barney for the release of funds to Wife. [¶ 11] On a related note, Husband argues that, once his accounts were subject to garnishment, it was equivalent to tendering payment on the judgment, thus ending his statutory obligation to pay interest. Husband is correct in so far as he argues payment of funds into the court ends his responsibility to pay statutory interest on the judgment. Rule 67 of the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure allows for the deposit of funds to the appropriate court: In an action in which any part of the relief sought is a judgment for a sum of money or the disposition of a sum of money or the disposition of any other thing capable of delivery, a party, upon notice to every other party, and by leave of court, may deposit with the court all or any part of such sum or thing, whether or not that party claims all or any part of the sum or thing. Money paid into court under this rule shall be held by the clerk of the court subject to withdrawal in whole or in part at any time thereafter upon order of the court or written stipulation of the parties. The fund shall be deposited in an interest-bearing account or invested in an interest-bearing instrument approved by the court. W.R.C.P. 67. This Court has held that [t]he purpose of W.R.C.P. 67 is to relieve the depositor of the responsibility for the funds and, in some circumstances, to stop the accrual of interest by authorizing a payment into the court. Parker v. Artery, 889 P.2d 520, 527 (Wyo.1995). [¶ 12] Husband is incorrect, however, in his argument that garnishment of funds is the equivalent of tendering funds to the court. This Court has explained: Statutory interest under Wyo. Stat. § 1-16-102(a) accrues from the time of the entry of the judgment until paid.     The phrase until paid as used in Wyo. Stat. § 1-16-102(a) is not defined. Therefore, this court inquires into the ordinary and obvious meaning of the statutory language to determine the legislative intent. Parker Land and Cattle Co. v. Wyoming Game and Fish Com'n, 845 P.2d 1040, 1042 (Wyo.1993). Until is a word of limitation which is used to fix a point in time or establish a point at which a precedent status ceases to exist upon the happening of a condition. Jones v. Jones, 402 P.2d 272, 274 (Okla. 1965); Black's Law Dictionary 1540 (6th ed. 1990). Paid is the past participle of pay. The plain meaning of pay includes the discharge of a debt by a tender of payment due. Black's Law Dictionary 1128 (6th ed. 1990). Tender is an unconditional offer to perform coupled with the ability to carry out the offer and the production of the subject matter of the tender. Black's Law Dictionary 1467 (6th ed. 1990). See Radalj v. Union Savings & Loan Ass'n, 59 Wyo. 140, 184, 138 P.2d 984, 999 (1943). Parker, 889 P.2d at 527-28. The garnishment of funds is not equivalent to a party depositing money with a court. Garnishment is a statutory process by which funds of a judgment debtor are essentially frozen until the judgment has been satisfied, by whatever means. See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-15-406 (LexisNexis 2009). The funds are not required to be paid to the court. Garnished funds thus do not constitute an unconditional offer to perform coupled with the ability to carry out the offer and the production of the subject matter of the tender by a party. [¶ 13] Finally on this issue, Husband argues the district court abused its discretion in ordering Husband to satisfy the judgment within five days of the order. This Court has said: Courts have inherent power to enforce their own judgments and should see to it that such judgments are enforced when they are called upon to do so. To deprive a court of power to execute its judgments is to impair its jurisdiction, and the general rule is that every court having jurisdiction to render a particular judgment has inherent power and authority to enforce it and to exercise equitable control over such enforcement. Thus, a court of equity has inherent power to enforce its decrees. A court of equity retains and possesses the power to control the manner of the execution of its decree, and has the inherent right to modify, by a subsequent order, the manner in which it shall be enforced. Hurd v. Nelson, 714 P.2d 767, 771 (Wyo. 1986). Given Husband's interminable recalcitrance in paying the judgment, and the fact that attachable funds in the Smith Barney account were sufficient to discharge the judgment, we find the district court did not abuse its equitable authority to establish and enforce the manner of execution in its decree. [3]