Opinion ID: 1103237
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the chancellor erred in awarding interest on child support at 8% per annum.

Text: ¶ 14. Houck argues that, first, he does not owe any arrearages, and second, that 8% does not appear to be fair ... in today's economy. He cites no case law in support of his argument. ¶ 15. The chancellor had the discretion to set the rate of interest. Miss. Code Ann. § 75-17-7 (Rev.2000). [1] There is no question that the chancellor had the authority to award interest on delinquent child support payments. As to the amount of interest awarded, we have affirmed an award of 8% per annum rate of interest on past due child support payments. Adams v. Adams, 591 So.2d 431, 436 (Miss.1991). Notwithstanding today's lower interest rates, the child support payments owed by Houck were due over several years in which interest rates fluctuated. We find that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion as to this issue and that this assignment of error is without merit.