The respondent husband brought a motion for financial disclosure within his Motion to Change spousal support.
The husband sought various bank and credit card statements from the applicant wife, who had relocated to Ukraine.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that because the Motion to Change had already been scheduled for a hearing and a timetable for evidence had been set at a settlement conference, the husband required leave of the court to bring a further motion for discovery under Rule 48.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which he did not obtain.
In the alternative, the court found that the wife had already produced the requested disclosure within her control and that the additional information sought was not relevant to the issues on the Motion to Change.
