Ind. Code » Title 31
Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 31-16-16-2 (2025)

Delinquent payment as judgment against obligor

✓ 2025 Indiana Code: the 2026 session is not included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     Sec. 2. A payment that is:

(1) required under a support order; and

(2) delinquent;

shall be treated as a judgment against the obligor for the delinquent amount.

[Pre-1997 Recodification Citation: 31-2-11-8.]

As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.8.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2000–2018 · leading case: Skolak v. Skolak, 895 N.E.2d 1241 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Skolak v. Skolak, 895 N.E.2d 1241 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 30× “In the instant case, the State could have brought an action to "treat as a judgment" pursuant to Indiana Code 31-16-16-2 and enforce the collection of Skolak's delinquent child support at any time within the period provided by Indiana Code section 34-11-2-1, i.”
Warsco v. Hambright, 762 N.E.2d 98 (Ind. 2002). · cites it 3× “However, Linton was decided before Indiana Code sections 31-16-16-2 through 6 were enacted 2 and before this Court's holding in Nill v.”
Caldwell v. Black, 727 N.E.2d 1097 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “However, our holding in the instant case does not, as Black cautions, render the Interest on Delinquent Child Support Statute a nullity by requiring interest pursuant to the Interest on Money Judgments Statute, currently at eight percent, in all cases where child support is…”
In re THE MARRIAGE OF: Melissa Martell v. Michael Martell (mem. dec.), No. 45A03-1709-DR-2114 (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2018). · cites it 2× “Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1709-DR-2114| March 27, 2018 Page 8 of 15 [13] Indiana Code Section 31-16-16-2 states that “[a] payment that is: (1) required under a support order; and (2) delinquent .”
Warsco v. Hambright, 735 N.E.2d 844 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “The State directs us to Indiana Code sections 31-16-16-2, 31-16-16-3, and 31-16-16-6 to support its assertion that the reasoning of cases like Lizak and Henady have been undercut.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.