Opinion ID: 2603711
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Order Dated January 24, 1990

Text: Hartley asserts the district court abused its discretion in denying her petition to modify the decree. She sought to increase Scaling's child support payments, to recover from Scaling reimbursement for past children's medical expenses she paid, and to establish Scaling's responsibility to provide medical support for the children. With reference to post-divorce modification in Warren v. Hart, 747 P.2d 511, 512 (Wyo. 1987), this court stated: A divorce decree is generally res judicata on all issues decided therein, Mentock v. Mentock, Wyo., 638 P.2d 156 (1981); Heyl v. Heyl, Wyo., 518 P.2d 28 (1974), and to clearly show a material and substantial change in circumstance is the proper standard for a modification of child support. Manners v. Manners, [706 P.2d 671, 674 (Wyo. 1985)]. This court said, Whether or not to modify a divorce decree rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and the court's determination will not be disturbed except for a grave abuse of that discretion or violation of some legal principle. Manners v. Manners, 706 P.2d 671, 674 (Wyo. 1985). Having carefully read the record with respect to the January 5, 1990 hearing, at which Scaling's certified public accountant was the sole live witness, [1] and having applied the foregoing appellate principles to the court's decision denying an increase in child support, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The accountant's testimony supported the court's determination that Scaling's net take-home salary was approximately the same as it had been when the original divorce decree was filed. We part company, however, with the district court's decision which cut short Hartley's attempt to recover reimbursement for past children's medical expenses and to establish Scaling's obligation to provide medical support for his children. In these particulars, Hartley sought that on which the divorce decree was silent. In Warren, 747 P.2d at 512-14, this court held inapplicable the usual standard for a modification of a divorce decree because the decree was silent on the item in question. There, the decree was silent on a child support award; here, the decree was silent on children's medical support. In Warren we announced the rule that the petition to establish a provision on which the decree was silent is not a motion to modify; rather [i]t is merely ancillary or supplemental to the main cause, and it is not necessary that a determination on such motion be based on a change in circumstance. Id. at 513. Accordingly, the standard for establishing rather than modifying [children's medical support] should apply. Id. Considering the district court's decision letters of November 15, 1989, and January 19, 1990, and the court's order dated January 24, 1990, we hold the court erred in applying the substantial-change-in-circumstances standard to Hartley's motion to recover past children's medical expenses and to establish medical support. We remand that part of the case to the district court with instructions to allow the parties full opportunity to litigate those issues. Next, we turn to Hartley's claim that the district court erred in denying the motion to compel Scaling's production of information relevant to Scaling's petition for an order requiring Hartley to pay some portion of the 1982 and 1983 tax liability. Scaling filed his petition on August 4, 1989; Hartley submitted her request for production on August 21, 1989, and her motion to compel on September 21, 1989. In its decision letter dated November 15, 1989, in which it notified the parties that it had denied Scaling's petition, the court noted that that dismissal rendered unnecessary any action on Hartley's motion to compel. That was confirmed in the January 24, 1990 order. From our review of Scaling's petition and Hartley's request and subsequent motion to compel, we are satisfied the district court correctly concluded that, upon its dismissal of Scaling's petition, Hartley's motion to compel was moot. Her request for production sought information solely for the purpose of defending against Scaling's petition. We find no error on this point. Finally, we have reviewed Hartley's last assignment of error, that the district court erred in failing to award her costs, expenses and attorney fees incurred in defending Scaling's short-lived petition to modify. As with most of the other matters Hartley has raised, this item resides within the district court's exercise of broad discretion. We find no grave abuse presented here. In summary, we affirm the district court on all matters raised except with respect to Hartley's claims to recover reimbursement for children's past medical expenses and to establish medical support, as to which claims we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.