dissenting, with whom TAYLOR, Chief Justice, joins.
I respectfully dissent. My perception of the facts is this: The trial court denied Mrs. Morehouse’s motion to compel discovery. As a result, Mrs. Morehouse was only able to learn of and cross-examine Mr. Morehouse about some of the “inadvertent” omissions in his financial affidavit. After trial, Mrs. Morehouse discovered further omissions and misrepresentations of marital assets and brought those to the attention of the trial court. The court, without so much as a hearing, determined that this additional evidence was simply more of the same and not cause for a different result. A majority of this court agreed that Mrs. Morehouse’s motion to vacate and alter or amend the judgment pursuant to W.R.C.P. 59 was, in essence, a motion to reconsider.
As the majority points out, a motion to alter or amend a judgment must articulate a new ground which could not have been brought during the action and upon which the trial court should utter a different ruling. In Sherman v. Rose, we stated that appropriate new grounds are: 1) an intervening change in controlling law, 2) the availability of new evidence not available at the time the case was originally heard, and 3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. 943 P.2d 719, 721 (Wyo.1997). Clearly, the additional undisclosed assets were newly discovered and could not have been brought up at trial, as the majority acknowledges. I cannot agree, however, with the majority’s assertion that the discovery of additional omissions and misrepresentations did not constitute grounds for a different ruling by the trial court.
Mr. Morehouse was questioned at trial about inaccuracies in his asset list and financial affidavits, and he admitted that he had inadvertently left out such substantial items as television sets, weapons, tools, and a VCR. Nevertheless, the court accepted Mr. More-house’s proposed property settlement with only minor changes. I find it incredible that, despite the thorough examination and cross-examination on the subject, Mr. Morehouse could have “inadvertently” failed to disclose still other items. I find it even more incredible that evidence of these additional omissions and misrepresentations is insufficient to cause the court to utter a different ruling because the court already considered whether Mr. Morehouse committed perjury.
The division of marital property is to be just and equitable. W.S. 20-2-114. The omissions and misrepresentations here, which go beyond those previously considered by the court and raise legitimate questions about Mr. Morehouse’s truthfulness, can only result in a distribution of marital assets which is manifestly unjust to Mrs. More-house. I believe that the motion was proper under Rule 59 and that we should examine this appeal on its merits.