COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

ROMINGER LEGAL

Virginia Legal Research & Resources - VA Legal Resources

Need Legal Help?

LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER

LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS

NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Courts of Virginia. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Baker, Willis and Bray
Argued at Norfolk, Virginia

BARBARA LUANN MANCINI
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
v. Record No. 1420-96-1 JUDGE RICHARD S. BRAY
APRIL 8, 1997
J. PETER MANCINI

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GLOUCESTER COUNTY
John M. Folkes, Judge

Vicki Beard for appellant.

Michael T. Soberick (Dusewicz & Soberick,
P.C., on brief), for appellee.

Barbara LuAnn Mancini (wife) appeals the trial court's
denial of her petition for an increase in child support from
J. Peter Mancini (husband). On appeal, she contends the court
(1) erroneously quashed her subpoenas duces tecum for certain
financial records of the corporation of which husband was the
sole shareholder and (2) erroneously concluded that she failed to
demonstrate a material change in circumstances justifying a
review of previously ordered child support. We reverse on the
discovery issue and remand the proceedings for further
consideration by the trial court.
The parties are fully conversant with the record, and this
memorandum opinion recites only those facts necessary to a
disposition of the appeal.
Wife, as petitioner for a modification of previously ordered
support, was required to prove both a material change in
circumstances since the prior award and justification for an
attendant change in support. See, e.g., Hiner v. Hadeed, 15 Va.
App. 575, 579, 425 S.E.2d 811, 814 (1993). Thus, records
probative of husband's financial status prior to the divorce are
arguably irrelevant to the instant proceedings. However, records
of husband's economic circumstances subsequent to the earlier
order, including the financial particulars of the corporation,
are proper subjects of inquiry which "appear[] reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."
Rule 4:1(b)(1); see Rule 4:9(a), (c).
We recognize that decisions relating to discovery generally
rest "within the trial court's discretion and will be reversed
only if the action taken was improvident and affected substantial
rights." Rakes v. Fulcher, 210 Va. 542, 546, 172 S.E.2d 751, 755
(1970). In this instance, we conclude that the trial court
abused its discretion in quashing the subpoenas.
Accordingly, we reverse the decree of the trial court and
remand the proceedings with instructions that wife be allowed the
requested discovery, limited, however, to the period following
the prior support order, and that her petition be thereafter
reconsidered by the court, together with such matters then in
evidence.
Reversed and remanded.

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Virginia Legal Research & Resources - VA Legal Resources
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE