|
ROMINGER
LEGAL
|
||||||||||
|
Virginia Legal Research & Resources -
VA Legal Resources
|
||||||||||
| Need Legal Help? | ||||||||||
|
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 |
|
|
Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIAPresent: 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.
|
|
|
NOW - CASE
LAW - All 50 States - Federal Courts - Try
it for FREE
We
now have full text legal news
drawn from all the major sources!!
Pennsylvania Lawyer Help Board
TERMS
OF USE - DISCLAIMER - LINKING POLICIES
Created and Developed by
Rominger Legal
Copyright 1997 - 2009.
A Division of
ROMINGER, INC.
