Opinion ID: 2581621
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Full Discovery of Father's Financial Assets

Text: [¶ 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.