Skinner and Skinner

“[W]here a money award has been modified on appeal and the only action necessary in the trial court is compliance with the mandate of the appellate court, then the interest on the award, as modified, should run from the date of the original judgment.” Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc., 329 Or. 369 (1999).

Wife petitioned for review of a reversal in Skinner II (2021) of the trial court’s decision that Husband owed interest on the adjusted spousal support awarded in Skinner I (2017) by the Court of Appeals. Wife assigned error to the court’s 2021 decision that payment of retroactive interest was improper. On appeal, Wife argued that the adjustment of support payments in the corrected judgment did not “wipe out” the original judgment; therefore, the addition of interest to the award should begin from the original judgment date. Husband argued that retroactive interest only applied to adjusted “lump sum” awards and not to judgments awarding installment payments. “[W]here a money award has been modified on appeal and the only action necessary in the trial court is compliance with the mandate of the appellate court, then the interest on the award, as modified, should run from the date of the original judgment.” Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc., 329 Or. 369 (1999). The Court reasoned that the interest payments related to the original judgment involved “post-judgment” interest based on the adjusted installment amount, even though they were imposed retroactively. The Court concluded that the award of statutory interest was appropriate beginning on the original date that support payments began under the divorce decree in 2014. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.