In re the Marriage of Gromicko
2017 CO 1
Colo.2017Background
- Wife filed for dissolution (Sept 2015) seeking spousal maintenance and equitable division; Husband founded and works for InterNACHI, a Colorado 501(c)(6) nonprofit.
- Wife subpoenaed InterNACHI for broad business records (compensation, related persons, bookkeeping, Form 990, conflict policies) to investigate Husband’s "true income" and whether InterNACHI is his alter ego.
- Husband initially indicated records could be produced but later refused; InterNACHI moved to quash, asserting privilege, confidentiality, irrelevance, and that Wife had not pled veil-piercing in her petition.
- The district court denied the motion to quash, concluding Wife need not plead fraud/veil-piercing in the dissolution petition and allowing broad discovery subject to protective order, without tailoring scope or making findings.
- InterNACHI petitioned the Colorado Supreme Court under C.A.R. 21; the Supreme Court reviewed whether the district court abused its discretion in ordering wide-ranging production from a non-party.
Issues
| Issue | Wife's Argument | InterNACHI's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a dissolution petitioner must plead veil-piercing in the petition | Petition need not include veil-piercing allegations up front; discovery may uncover facts | Petition must plead veil-piercing/fraud to justify discovery into non-party corporate records | Court: No pleading requirement; statute doesn’t demand veil-piercing be pled in petition |
| Proper scope of discovery from a non-party when scope is objected to | Entitled to broad discovery to try to prove alter-ego and husband’s true income | Many requests are privileged, confidential, irrelevant; scope objection required tailored review | Court: District court abused discretion by not tailoring discovery; vacated order compelling broad production and remanded for limited, targeted discovery to test alter-ego allegations |
Key Cases Cited
- DCP Midstream, LP v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., 303 P.3d 1187 (Colo. 2013) (district courts must actively manage discovery and tailor scope to the reasonable needs of the case)
- Leonard v. McMorris, 63 P.3d 323 (Colo. 2003) (factors to determine corporate alter ego/veil piercing)
- Gateway Logistics, Inc. v. Smay, 302 P.3d 235 (Colo. 2013) (original jurisdiction may be appropriate when disclosure would cause irreparable harm)
- Estate of Burford v. Burford, 935 P.2d 943 (Colo. 1997) (discussing Colorado’s no-fault dissolution framework)