Opinion ID: 2582200
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure To Dismiss Ovitt's Motion at the First Hearing

Text: Byers's first argument is that the superior court master erred in failing to dismiss Ovitt's motion after an initial hearing, and that the decision to permit discovery of Byers's tax returns allowed Ovitt to engage in a fishing expedition. But Alaska Civil Rule 90.3, which provides for the issuance and modification of child support orders, does not create an exception to the general rule that trial courts have broad discretion in determining the extent of discovery. [11] Rule 90.3(h) permits a trial court to modify a child support order if a material change of circumstances occurs, such that support as calculated under [Rule 90.3] is more than 15 percent greater or less than the outstanding support order. Trial courts must consider all motions for a modification of child support, [12] and may modify the original order if a change in circumstances is shown by a preponderance of the evidence. [13] As Byers correctly notes, the change must be a factual event that affects a party's ability to pay, not just a proposal to change the method of calculation. [14] But Rule 90.3 places few limits on trial courts' broad discretion [15] regarding the scope of discovery, and this court has emphasized the importance of tak[ing] all evidence necessary to accurately reflect the parties' economic reality. [16] Neither Rule 90.3, nor any of our cases, requires that a trial court adjudicating a motion to modify child support limit the proceedings to a single hearing or forbid discovery after the first hearing. To the extent that this rule addresses discovery at all, it supports the superior court's request for Byers's tax returns: Rule 90.3(e)(1) requires each parent in a child support proceeding to file a statement under oath of his or her income, accompanied by documentation verifying the income. [17] In the present case, a copy of Byers's complete tax return was not in the record, and the other evidence that had been submitted was inconclusive. In view of this lack of evidence, and Byers's duty under Rule 90.3(e)(1) to submit income documentation, it was appropriate and well within its discretion for the superior court to ask for [Byers's] current tax returns. [18] Furthermore, far from granting Ovitt unconditional license to engage in a fishing expedition, the superior court limited the additional discovery to documents necessary to determine Byers's income in the tax year after the child support order was issued. When Ovitt requested documents beyond this, the court denied the request: [Ovitt's attorney]: I would like you to continue the hearing date. I'd like Mr. Byers to have a date to supply to us the company records from '99 through  The Court: No. We're not going backwards. I'm sorry Mr. Eschbacher, I'm not  [Ovitt's attorney] Well, the reason I want to go backwards is for comparison. The Court: I am not willing to do that. By limiting discovery in this way, the trial court properly focused the proceedings on the central issue: whether Byers's income had changed significantly since the previous order was filed. We therefore hold that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in permitting discovery of Byers's tax return.