BRANDON COMBS v. HON. C. HUNTER DAUGHERTY, JUDGE, JESSAMINE CIRCUIT COURT AND JENNIFER COMBS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
AUGUST 5, 2005; 10:00 A.M.
TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2005-CA-000940-OA
BRANDON COMBS
v.
PETITIONER
ORIGINAL ACTION REGARDING JESSAMINE CIRCUIT COURT
ACTION NO. 01-CI-00094
HON. C. HUNTER DAUGHERTY,
JUDGE, JESSAMINE CIRCUIT COURT
RESPONDENT
AND
JENNIFER COMBS
REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING CR 76.36 RELIEF
** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
MINTON, SCHRODER, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.
TAYLOR, JUDGE:
Petitioner, Brandon Combs, pro se, petitions
this Court to prohibit respondent, Jessamine Circuit Court, from
enforcing its order of March 28, 2005, compelling Brandon to
produce discovery to the real party in interest, Jennifer Combs.
Neither the circuit court nor Jennifer responded to this
original action.1
On May 19, 2005, Brandon filed a Ky. R. Civ. P. (CR)
76.36(4) motion for intermediate relief seeking a stay of
enforcement of a May 16, 2005, order, which provided a warrant
of arrest would issue if Brandon did not tender the requested
discovery by May 26, 2005.
This Court granted the motion for
intermediate relief and issued a temporary stay of the May 16,
2005 order by order entered May 25, 2005.
This Court has considered Brandon’s arguments and the
appended record, including the videotape of the March 24, 2005,
hearing on Jennifer’s motion to compel, and, being sufficiently
advised,2 ORDERS that the petition for writ of prohibition be
GRANTED.
On December 15, 2004, Jennifer served Brandon with a
request for production of a number of his personal financial
documents.
The request invoked CR 34 but did not otherwise
state a basis.
On March 18, 2005, Jennifer filed a motion to
compel a response to her request.
Therein, Jennifer argued that
Brandon had neither objected nor complied with the request for
1
The original action was filed on May 2, 2005. Pursuant to Ky. R. Civ. P.
76.36(2), any response was due to be filed by May 12, 2005.
2
Since Jennifer chose not to respond to the petition, we shall assume that
the record provided by Brandon is the complete record of this matter.
-2-
production of documents3 and that the requested discovery was
“relevant, proper, and required for the purpose of calculating
child support pursuant to the Kentucky Revised Statutes and said
request should be answered.”4
It was not until the hearing on
that motion that Jennifer’s counsel explained that she had
changed employment with a resulting change in her insurance.
The circuit court advised Brandon that this change in
circumstance required taking a look at the entire issue and
granted Jennifer’s motion to compel discovery.
In this original action, Brandon recognizes that a
circuit court has continuing jurisdiction over child support
issues arising subsequent to a divorce decree.
However, Brandon
contends the circuit court acted without jurisdiction in this
instance because there was no motion for modification of child
support pending before the court.
Hence, Brandon argues there
was no legitimate basis for the circuit court to grant
Jennifer’s motion to compel.
Brandon argues in the alternative
that the circuit court erred in exercising its jurisdiction by
3
Brandon attached as an exhibit to his petition a copy of a letter to
Jennifer’s counsel, dated January 12, 2005, wherein he advised that he would
not formally respond to the request because “no action is pending, therefore
I know of no basis that discovery will be taken . . . .”
4
The parties were divorced by decree of the Jessamine Circuit Court entered
on July 23, 2001.
-3-
issuing an order that was arbitrary and capricious and which
violated Sections 2 and 115 of the Kentucky Constitution.
Upon review of the record, we conclude that Brandon
has satisfied the prerequisites for entitlement to a writ and
that this Court’s intervention is required to prevent a
miscarriage of justice.
See Hoskins v. Maricle, 150 S.W.3d 1
(Ky. 2004); see also, Carpenter v. Wells, 358 S.W.2d 524 (Ky.
1962); Bender v. Eaton, 343 S.W.2d 799 (Ky. 1961).
In support of this ruling, we note that CR 26.02(1)
provides that parties “may obtain discovery regarding any
matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter
involved in the pending action . . . .”
We also observe that a
circuit court does have continuing jurisdiction over child
support matters.
However, the issue presented in this case is
one of first impression:
whether a party may engage in
unlimited discovery regarding child support in a divorce
proceeding after a decree has been entered, without first filing
a motion to modify the child support award.
The modification of a child support award is governed
by KRS 403.213(1).
Under this statute, the provisions of any
decree relating to child support may be modified only upon a
showing of a material change in circumstances that is
substantial and continuing.
In order to seek a modification of
child support, the burden was on Jennifer to make some showing
-4-
of a material change of circumstance before requiring Brandon to
produce personal financial documents and before moving the
circuit court to compel him to do so.
See Wilcher v. Wilcher,
566 S.W.2d 173 (Ky.App. 1978); Farmer v. Farmer, 506 S.W.2d 109
(Ky. 1974).
The record in this case shows that Jennifer did not
file any motion to modify child support before serving a
discovery request on Brandon, nor was such a motion pending when
she moved to compel the discovery.
We believe that Jennifer’s
statement in her motion to compel that the discovery sought was
“relevant, proper, and required for the purpose of calculating
child support” was insufficient to give Brandon adequate notice
of the reason for her request.
We also believe the statement
made by Jennifer’s counsel at the hearing that child support
needed to be recalculated because of Jennifer’s change in
employment (wherein Brandon responded that he had not been
previously made aware of this fact) was untimely and otherwise
insufficient to justify a discovery hearing at that time.
Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that
the circuit court should have declined to permit discovery until
Jennifer properly presented her request for a modification of
child support under KRS 403.213 and that the court erred in
granting the discovery request prior to the filing of a motion
for modification.
-5-
Therefore, the Jessamine Circuit Court is hereby
PROHIBITED from enforcing its orders entered March 28, 2005, and
May 16, 2005.
The matter is REMANDED to the circuit court for
further proceedings, as needed, consistent with this opinion and
order.
ALL CONCUR.
ENTERED:
/s/ Jeff S. Taylor
JUDGE, COURT OF APPEALS
August 5, 2005
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER:
Brandon Combs, Pro Se
Nicholasville, Kentucky
-6-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.