Case Title: GERRI E. McCULLOH V. JOHN W. DRAKE

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2005-02-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
GERRI E. McCULLOH V. JOHN W. DRAKE2005 WY 18105 P.3d 1091Case Number: 04-25Decided: 02/11/2005
 
 
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2004

 
 
                                                                                                            
 

 
 
GERRI E. 
McCULLOH,

 
 
Appellant

(Petitioner) 
,

 
 
v.

 
 
JOHN W. 
DRAKE,

 
 
Appellee

(Respondent) 
.

 
 
 
 

Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofAlbanyCounty

The 
Honorable Jeffrey A. Donnell, Judge

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

            
William L. Hiser of Brown & Hiser, LLC, Laramie, Wyoming. 

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

            
C.M. Aron of Aron & Hennig, Laramie, Wyoming. 

 
 
 
 
Before 
HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ., and GUTHRIE, 
DJ.

 
 
KITE, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Gerri E. McCulloh 
(Mother) filed a petition in the district court seeking to modify child support 
to increase John W. Drake's (Father) child support payments.  The district court denied the petition 
and Mother contends it abused its discretion by refusing her full discovery of 
Father's financial assets, precluding increased child support because she did 
not raise that issue during a prior custody modification proceeding, and 
generally refusing to modify child support for other reasons.  We reverse the district court's order in 
part, affirm in part, and remand for entry of a revised order consistent with 
this opinion.

 
 
 
 
ISSUES

 
 
[¶2]      Mother states 
three issues for review:

 
 

1.                  
Whether the district court 
erred in refusing to allow [Mother] full discovery of [Father's] financial 
status.

 
 

2.                  
Whether the district court 
erred in concluding that [Mother] was precluded from raising the issue of a 
modification of child support based upon a modification of child custody because 
she failed to raise it at the time child custody was 
modified.

 

3.                  
Whether the district court 
otherwise erred in its refusal to modify child support.

 
 
Father presents only two 
issues:

 
 

1.      
Whether it is an abuse of 
discretion for the trial court to deny modification of child support where there 
has been no substantial change in the income of the non-custodial 
parent.

 
 

2.      
Whether it is an abuse of 
discretion for the trial court to deny modification of child support when the 
custodial parent seeks deviation from presumptive child support based only on 
the amount of property owned by the non-custodial parent, rather than his 
income.

 
 
 
 
FACTS

 
 

[¶3]      We have twice 
addressed other issues arising from the parties' divorce decree in McCulloh 
v. Drake, 2001 WY 56, 24 P.3d 1162 (Wyo. 2001), and Drake v. 
McCulloh, 
2002 WY 50, 43 P.3d 578 (Wyo. 
2002).  As we stated in those 
decisions, the district court granted the parties' divorce on October 8, 1999, 
awarding them shared physical custody of their minor son.  The original divorce decree imputed 
income of $1,800.00 per month to Mother and $12,000.00 per month to Father.  On the basis of those amounts, the court 
ordered Father to pay $1,200.00 per month in child support.  That amount constituted an upward 
deviation from the required statutory amount. 

 
 
[¶4]      In 2000, the 
district court granted Mother's petition to modify custody and awarded her 
primary custody.  Neither party 
raised child support as an issue in the custody modification proceedings.  Thus, it remained  $1,200.00 per 
month.

 
 
[¶5]      The present case 
began in December of 2002, when Mother filed a petition to modify child 
support.1  In the petition, Mother alleged there 
was a sufficient change in circumstances to modify child support by 20 percent 
or more because of: (1) the increase in Father's net income and decrease in 
Mother's net income; (2) the change in physical custody of the minor child; (3) 
the financial conditions of the parties; (4) inflation; (5) the current Wyoming 
child support guidelines; and/or (6) the needs of the minor child.  Father denied Mother's claims.  

 
 
[¶6]      On January 10, 
2003, Mother served Father with her first set of interrogatories and requests 
for production of documents requesting information regarding gross income, 
sources of income, accounts, investments, monthly expenses, outstanding 
obligations, any debtors, tax returns from 1999-2002, pay stubs, assets, 
property interests, income from rental/lease property, development plans, 
earnings from oil well(s), and earnings from partnerships, trusts, and real 
estate.  Father provided income tax 
returns for 2000 and 2001, but otherwise stated that he had previously produced 
"voluminous" discovery on past income and objected to Mother's requests on the 
basis that they were "irrelevant, outside the scope of WRCP 26 and not likely to 
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence with regard to child support, 
overly burdensome, and intended for improper purposes."  

 
 
[¶7]      Mother filed a 
motion to compel discovery.  The 
district court held a hearing on the motion on March 17, 2003, and ordered 
Father to provide his 2002 tax returns and schedules as they became 
available.  The court also ordered 
Father to provide copies of trust agreements, and trust income information for 
the years 2000-2002 from any trusts of which Father was a beneficiary and/or 
trustee, information regarding sales of properties in Virginia, any debtors, 
interests in real property since 1999, income receivable from rental/lease 
property, earnings from the Texarkana oil well(s), earnings from partnerships, 
and price and terms related to the sale of Florida real estate.  

 
 
[¶8]      On May 12, 2003, 
Mother filed a renewed motion to compel discovery.  The court set a hearing on the motion as 
well as ordering Father to appear and show cause why he should not be held in 
contempt of court for failing to abide by the court's order compelling 
discovery.  The hearing was held on 
June 5, 2003, and the court again ruled generally in favor of Mother and 
additionally required Father to provide information regarding specific trusts 
and his 1998 and 1999 tax returns.   

 
 
[¶9]      On June 11, 2003, 
Mother served Father with her third set of requests for production of documents, 
requesting more financial information.  
Father filed a motion for protective order, to which Mother 
objected.  At Mother's request, the 
district court held yet another hearing on August 7, 2003, after which the court 
held Mother's third set of requests for production of documents was "unduly 
burdensome" and that "such discovery is not likely to lead to the discovery of 
admissible evidence" and granted Father's motion for protective order.  

 
 
[¶10]   
The district court held a hearing on the merits of the petition for 
modification of child support on September 19, 2003.  In its decision letter and order, the 
court denied Mother's petition on the grounds that:  1) Father's net monthly 
income was essentially unchanged since the entry of the divorce decree; 2) 
Mother chose not to address child support at the 2000 custody modification 
proceeding and "no significant changes" had occurred in custody or income since 
then; and 3) the child support payments were adequate.  Mother timely 
appealed.

 
 
 
 
STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

 
 
[¶11]   
As we described in Pace v. Pace, 2001 WY 43, ¶9, 22 P.3d 861, ¶9 
(Wyo. 2001):

 
 
Custody, visitation, child support, and alimony are 
all committed to the sound discretion of the district court. It has been our 
consistent principle that in custody matters, the welfare and needs of the 
children are to be given paramount consideration. The determination of the best 
interests of the child is a question for the trier of fact.  "We do not overturn the decision of the 
trial court unless we are persuaded of an abuse of discretion or the presence of 
a violation of some legal principle." Fink [v. Fink], 685 P.2d [34,] 36 
[(Wyo. 
1984)].

 
 
 
 

Judicial discretion is a composite of many things, 
among which are conclusions drawn from objective criteria; "it means 
[exercising] sound judgment . . . with regard to what is right under the 
circumstances and without doing so arbitrarily or capriciously."  Id., ¶9.  We cannot sustain findings of fact not 
supported by the evidence, contrary to the evidence, or against the great weight 
of the evidence.  Id., ¶10. 
 Similarly, an abuse of 
discretion is present when a material factor deserving significant weight is 
ignored.  Id. The 
party seeking modification must establish there has been a material and 
substantial change in circumstances, which outweighs the interest of society 
in applying the doctrine of res judicata.  Ready v. 
Ready, 
2003 WY 121, ¶11, 76 P.3d 836, 
¶11 (Wyo. 2003). 
 The trial court is vested with 
discretion to modify the provisions of the divorce decree and, absent a grave 
abuse of that discretion, we will not disturb its decision.  Id.

 
 
 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶12]   
Mother argues the district court abused its discretion when it denied her 
full discovery of Father's financial status; when it concluded she was precluded 
from raising the issue of modification of child support because she failed to 
raise it at the time child custody was modified; and when it refused to modify 
child support for other reasons.

 
 
 
 
1.         
Full Discovery of Father's Financial Assets

 
 
[¶13]   
While Mother argues the district court abused its discretion in refusing 
to allow her full discovery of Father's financial assets, Father responds that 
she was granted "enormous leeway" in discovery and all relevant income and 
property information.  On June 11, 
2003, Mother filed her third set of requests for production of 
documents.  Those requests 
included:

 
 

REQUEST NO. 1:  Please 
produce a current net worth of your estate including current values of all 
assets.  In your net worth 
statement, please list and describe your current assets in the following 
categories and include the information requested in 
parenthesis:

 
 

a.                  
Cash (current amount, 
locations, interest rate);

b.                  
Certificates of Deposit 
(current amount, dates of maturity, interest rate)[;]

c.                  
Stocks and bonds (issuer, 
number of shares, types, current values, and locations);

d.                  
Tax refunds due to you, if 
any (amounts);

e.                  
Insurance policies (face 
amount, cash value, and name of company);

f.                    
Accounts and notes 
receivable (current amount, owner, obligor)[;]

g.                  
Real Estate 
(location/description, estimated current value and income if 
any);

h.                  
Mutual funds (current 
values, companies, types, and locations);

i.                    
Equipment (types and 
estimated current values);

j.                     
Motor vehicles, boats, and 
airplanes (description and estimated current value);

k.                  
Antiques (description and 
estimated current value);

l.                     
Livestock (description and 
estimated current value); and

m.                
Other assets and personal 
property (description and current value).

 
 
RESPONSE:

 
 
REQUEST NO. 2: Please produce a statement, complete 
with current values, of all inheritances and expected 
inheritances.

 
 
RESPONSE:

 
 
[¶14]   
Mother contends Father's asset allocation and net worth were relevant in 
determining child support and should have been accessible to Mother through 
discovery and considered by the district court.  In support, Mother primarily relies on 
Cubin v. Cubin, 685 P.2d 680 (Wyo. 1984) 
and Bereman v. Bereman, 645 P.2d 1155, 1160 (Wyo. 
1982).

 
 

[¶15]   
We agree with Mother that, when a party petitions for modification of 
child support, discovery should be allowed with respect to the other party's 
assets as well as the needs of the children.  We have held failure to permit such 
discovery is reversible error.  
Hinckley v. Hinckley, 
812 P.2d 907, 913 (Wyo. 
1991); Cubin, 685 P.2d  at 686.  However, in Cubin, virtually no 
relevant discovery was obtained by the father.  Here, Father answered Mother's first two 
initial discovery requests with his income tax returns for 1994-2002.  The court ordered him to provide more 
information on the trusts, and he complied.  All in all, the record shows that Father 
provided Mother with 25 exhibits showing relevant income and asset 
information.  

 
 
[¶16]   
District courts are vested with wide discretion on discovery matters and 
may deny the same if the information was available from other sources.  Kidd v. Kidd, 832 P.2d 566 
(Wyo. 1992); Inskeep v. Inskeep, 752 P.2d 434 (Wyo. 1988); Mauch v. Stanley 
Structures, Inc., 641 P.2d 1247 (Wyo. 1982).  Nonetheless, the court's discretion 
is not unlimited - reversal may be in order when the court's ruling rests on 
clearly untenable or unreasonable grounds.   W.R.C.P. 26.  

 
 
[¶17]   
The record does not indicate an abuse of discretion with regard to the 
denial of further discovery.  Father 
provided ample evidence of his finances to Mother.  Father testified at length about his 
financial interests and explained the trusts so as to satisfy the trial court 
that further documentation or certification regarding the "KFB" trusts or a 
non-existent "Triple-D" trust was not required.  He also testified that distributions 
from trusts and rental income were shown on his income tax returns.   

 
 
[¶18]   
In this instance, the trial court reasonably could have determined 
additional discovery was not necessary to determine child support.  Accordingly, we hold the district court 
did not abuse its discretion in granting Father's protective order. 

 
 
 
 
2.         
Failure to Request Child Support Modification at the Custody Modification 
Proceeding.

 
 
[¶19]   
Mother claims the district court erred when it denied her petition for 
child support modification, in part, because she did not raise the issue during 
the prior custody modification proceedings.  She also asserts that any change in 
circumstances should be measured from the time the divorce decree establishing 
child support was entered, not from the time custody was modified.  In response, Father argues the district 
court determined there have been no significant changes in custody or income so 
the issue is res judicata.

 
 
[¶20]   
The district court determined that because child support was not 
addressed at the 2000 custody modification proceeding, and because no 
significant changes in custody or income occurred from that proceeding until 
Mother's petition to modify child support, the court would "not now modify child 
support based on a change of custody that could have been addressed when the 
change occurred."  

 
 

[¶21]   
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-311(a) (LexisNexis 2003) provides that an action 
to modify a 
child support 
order based upon a substantial change of circumstances may be brought by a party 
at any time.  
See also Watson v. Watson, 
2002 WY 180, ¶5, 
60 P.3d 124, ¶5 (Wyo. 2002).  In the interests of judicial economy, 
changes in custody and child support modification, if warranted, would ideally 
be considered at the same time.  
However, nothing in the law requires that be done.  Thus, a party is not precluded from 
addressing child support subsequent to a change in custody.  "When . . . support obligations are 
either not asserted or not determined, subsequent judicial consideration may be 
invoked for decision on all facts elicited at a subsequent hearing."  Warren v. Hart, 747 P.2d 511, 513-14 
(Wyo. 
1987).  

 
 
[¶22]   
To the extent the district court's decision to deny Mother's petition was 
based upon her failure to request child support modification at the same time 
the change in custody was requested, it is in error.

 
 
 
 
3.         
Change of Circumstances

 
 

[¶23]   In determining whether a change of 
circumstances occurred, the 
district court considered the time from the custody modification hearing to the 
child support hearing, rather than the time from when the divorce was granted 
and child support determined to the child support modification hearing.  Our case law clearly states that the 
party who seeks to have a child support order modified has the burden of showing 
that a substantial or material change in circumstances has occurred since the 
initial decree was entered.  
Erhart v. 
Evans, 
2001 WY 79, ¶15, 30 P.3d 542, ¶15 
(Wyo. 2001) (emphasis added); see also Wood v. Wood, 964 P.2d 1259, 1262 (Wyo. 1998).  A party seeking support modification 
must show how the parties' circumstances have changed subsequent to the entry of 
the original decree.  
Cubin, 685 P.2d  at 
684.

 
 
[¶24]   In a similar case, Bradshaw v. 
Billups, 587 S.W.2d 61 (Tex. App. 1979), the court granted custody of the 
minor child to the mother and ordered the father to pay $200.00 per month in 
support.  The court subsequently 
modified custody in the father's favor and did not address child support at that 
time.  Eventually, the father sought 
support from the mother.  She argued 
the father must demonstrate a change in circumstances from the date he obtained 
custody.  The court 
disagreed:

 
 
The 1976 order 
modified only a portion of the original 1974 decree.  That modification did not require any 
child support payments from the mother.  
We hold that the "relevant period" for measuring a change in 
circumstances, as to the mother's obligation to pay child support, begins on the 
date of the original decree.  That 
is the decree which is being modified.

 
 

Id. 
at 62.  We agree with this reasoning.  See also Patterson v. Patterson, 
796 So. 2d 359, 362 (Ala. App. Ct. 2000).  Here, a substantial change in circumstances occurred in 
that custody was modified from shared custody in both parents to primary custody 
in Mother.  Thus, by statute, the 
presumptive child support amount originally based on shared custody should have 
been re-evaluated based on primary custody in Mother.  With regard to shared custody 
arrangements, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-304(c) (LexisNexis 2003) provides, in 
pertinent part:

 
 
§20-2-304.  Presumptive child 
support.

 
 
. . .

 
 
(c) When each parent keeps the children 
overnight for more than forty percent (40%) of the year and both parents 
contribute substantially to the expenses of the children in addition to the 
payment of child support, a joint presumptive support obligation shall be 
determined by use of the tables. After the joint presumptive child support 
obligation is derived from column three of the tables, that amount shall be 
divided between the parents in proportion to the net income of each. The 
proportionate share of the total obligation of each parent shall then be 
multiplied by the percentage of time the children spend with the other parent to 
determine the theoretical support obligation owed to the other parent. The 
parent owing the greater amount of child support shall pay the difference 
between the two (2) amounts as the net child support 
obligation.

Wyo. Stat. Ann. §20-2-304(a) (LexisNexis 2003), 
the applicable statute where one parent, in this case Mother, has primary 
custody, states:

 
 

(a)                     
Child support shall be 
expressed in a specific dollar amount. The following child support tables shall 
be used to determine the total child support obligation considering the combined 
income of both parents. The appropriate table is based upon the number of 
children for whom the parents share joint legal responsibility and for whom 
support is being sought. After the combined net income of both parents is 
determined it shall be used in the first column of the tables to find the 
appropriate line from which the total child support obligation of both parents 
can be computed from the third column. The child support obligation computed 
from the third column of the tables shall be divided between the parents in 
proportion to the net income of each. The noncustodial parent's share of the 
joint child support obligation shall be paid to the custodial parent through the 
clerk of court.

 
 
[¶25]   
Using the previously determined income amounts originally established by 
the district court,2 the presumptive guidelines would 
now require Father to pay approximately $1,500.00 per month in support.  That change is over 20 percent, which is 
a sufficient ground to modify support under § 20-2-311:

 
 
. . . If, upon applying the presumptive child support 
to the circumstances of the parents or child at the time of review, the court 
finds that the support amount would change by twenty percent (20%) or more per 
month from the amount of the existing order, the court shall consider there to 
be a change in circumstances sufficient to justify the modification of the 
support order.

 
 
However, as we clarified in Pauling v. Pauling, 
837 P.2d 1073 (Wyo. 1992):

[A] twenty percent change in support constitutes a 
sufficient change in circumstances to modify an order; it does not mean that a 
court is obligated to modify the support order to conform to the guidelines. The 
guidelines are still only "rebuttably presumed to be the correct amount of child 
support to be awarded in any proceeding to . . . modify . . . child support 
amounts." Section 20-6-302(a). The court may deviate from the presumptively 
correct support level created by the guidelines when application of the 
guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate. To determine whether a particular 
level would be unjust or inappropriate, the court may consider a comprehensive 
list of factors enumerated in § 20-6-302(b).

 
 
[¶26]   
Accordingly, the change in custody from shared custody to primary custody 
in Mother should have been rebuttably presumed to be a sufficient change in 
circumstances to warrant modification of child support.  We remand this matter to the district 
court for determination of whether a deviation from that presumptive amount is 
warranted.

 
 
 
 
4.         
Child Support Modification For "Other 
Reasons."

 
 
[¶27]   
Mother finally argues that child support should be modified for other 
reasons, namely (1) the parties overall financial status; (2) imputing income to 
father to reflect low-yield investments; and (3) the child's standard of living 
to which he would be accustomed had the parents remained married.  In response, Father argues that although 
these factors may be relevant as to whether the district court should deviate 
from the presumptive child support amount, they are not relevant to the 
determination of the presumptive amount.  
However, because we are remanding this case to the district court for 
consideration of whether deviation is appropriate, it is within the district 
court's discretion to consider these factors in that new context.  We recognize the court's order addressed 
these substantive issues.  However, 
it also concluded, erroneously as a matter of law, that Mother's petition for 
modification could not be heard because she did not raise it earlier, and that 
no change in circumstances occurred even though custody had changed.  Consequently, we cannot determine 
whether its conclusion regarding the appropriate child support would have been 
different had it applied the appropriate law.  Therefore, on remand, the district court 
should address the issue of deviation from the statutorily presumed child 
support amount.  

 
 

[¶28]   In its consideration, the district 
court should note this Court's prior statement that consideration of a parent's 
wealth in a child support determination is not an abuse of discretion. 
 Bereman, 
645 P.2d  
at 1160.  However, no Wyoming authority 
expressly mandates the consideration of the value of a parent's assets in 
awarding child support. 

 
 
 
 
CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶29]   
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Mother's 
request for further discovery, and its order granting Father's motion for 
protective order is affirmed. The district court erred when it concluded Mother 
could not seek modification of child support because she had not raised that 
issue at the change of custody hearing and when it failed to find a change in 
circumstances after custody changed.  
We remand this matter to the district court to apply the presumptive 
guidelines according to the current custody arrangement.  On remand, the district court is not 
required to modify child support, but only to apply the guidelines and explain 
any deviation it deems appropriate in the exercise of its discretion. 

 
 

FOOTNOTES

1The 
petition was titled "Petition for Modification of Child Support and Judgment on 
Medical Arrearages."   The 
judgment on medical arrearages is not pertinent to this 
appeal.

2The 
district court imputed $1,800.00 per month of income to Mother and $12,000.00 
per month of income to Father.