Chepp v. Chepp, 2011 Ohio 4451

Married in 1971; decree of dissolution in 2000; separation agreement required $2,711/month spousal support to equalize incomes.
Trial court retained modification jurisdiction for unforeseen substantial changes in circumstances.
Chepp filed multiple motions (2006, 2007, 2008) to modify spousal support; hearings held; ultimately denied.
On remand, court found Mrs. Chepp’s income increase a substantial change but questioned whether it was contemplated at dissolution, and denied modification.
On the remand, court again imputed Mr. Chepp’s income at $95,400 and used Mrs. Chepp’s salary plus pension; reduced support to $697.66/month.
This appeal follows the trial court’s decision to modify spousal support based on the remand findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court complied with the remand order on the narrow issue of a substantial change in circumstances.	Chepp contends the court misapplied remand by exceeding the narrow issue.	Chepp argues the court correctly identified a change but misapplied the scope.	Yes, the court abused the remand scope on the narrow issue.
Whether including Mr. Chepp’s pension (and Mrs. Chepp’s pension) in income was proper given res judicata.	Chepp argues pension should be considered part of income; Chepp did not raise it earlier.	Chepp and Chepp did not properly raise this issue previously, but income calculations are contested.	The arguments are barred by res judicata and cannot be reviewed.

Reveal v. Reveal, 154 Ohio App.3d 1132 (2003-Ohio-5335) (abuse of discretion standard; cannot substitute own judgment for trial court’s)
Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (1995) (final judgment on merits bars later actions on same transaction/occurrence)
Kelm v. Kelm, 92 Ohio St.3d 223 (2001-Ohio-168) (res judicata; claim and issue preclusion)