of the settlement offer within sixty (60) days after the offer is accepted; or (3) the amount of the offer exceeds one and one-third (1 1/3) of the amount of the judgment awarded.” I.C. § 34-4-37-8. Cahoon specifically asserts that while Wife made several offers of settlement to Cahoon and Kohne together, each of the offers failed to comply with the statutory requirement that the terms of the offer must provide for payment of the settlement within sixty days of acceptance of the offer. Our review of the record confirms this omission in each of the offers. As this statutory prerequisite was not met, we conclude that the trial court erroneously awarded Wife prejudgment interest with respect to Dr. Cahoon. See Indiana Dept. of Human Services v. Firth, 590 N.E.2d 154, 157 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (<HOLDING>), trans. denied. However, for the same reasons,
holding that we must give effect to the plain and ordinary meaning of a statutes language recognizing that we must give meaning to all the words in the claims holding that statutes must be read so as to give effect to all statutory language holding when ordinance language is clear courts must give language its plain meaning recognizing that where the statutory language is not ambiguous  the plain and ordinary meaning of the statute must be given effect