Appellant Richard Odom (husband) and appellee Sherri Odom (wife) were divorced pursuant to a 2007 final divorce decree. The decree, which incorporated the parties’ settlement agreement, awarded wife primary custody of the parties’ three minor children and ordered
Following a hearing attended by both parties and their counsel, the trial court entered an order denying husband’s motions and granting wife’s motion for an upward modification of child support. The court determined there had been a substantial change in husband’s income and financial status sufficient to warrant an increase in child support, and after conducting the calculations required for determining child support under the child support guidelines, ordered an increase in husband’s monthly child support to cover the expenses of private school for the children.
1. Husband contends the trial court erred by modifying his child support obligation because modification was precluded under the doctrine of res judicata and because there was insufficient evidence of a change in circumstances to justify the modification.
The doctrine of res judicata provides that
[a] judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be conclusive between the same parties and their privies as to all matters put in issue or which under the rules of law might have been put in issue in the cause wherein the judgment was rendered until the judgment is reversed or set aside.
OCGA § 9-12-40. Res judicata thus “prevents the re-litigation of all claims which have already been adjudicated, or which could have been adjudicated, between identical parties or their privies in identical causes of action.” Waldroup v. Greene County Hosp. Auth.,
With regard to the merits of wife’s motion, we find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion. Under Georgia law, a custodial parent may seek modification of the non-custodial parent’s child support obligation based on a change in the income or financial status of either former spouse or in the needs of the child. OCGA §§ 19-6-15 (k) and 19-6-19 (a). Wife presented evidence that husband’s gross monthly income increased from $8,898 to $10,700.91 during the period between entry of the final divorce decree and the filing of her petition for modification. In addition, there was evidence that husband’s net worth had increased by almost three million dollars. This evidence supports the trial court’s finding of a substantial change in income and financial status sufficient to authorize modification of the support award. See Rolader v. Pendleton,
2. Contrary to husband’s argument, where a change in income or financial status sufficient to warrant a modification in the amount of child support payable on a per capita basis has been shown, the court is authorized to modify the per capita award into a group award. See Van Dyck v. Van Dyck,
3. We find no error in the trial court’s decision to exclude from evidence the testimony of a licensed psychologist who counseled the parties and their children regarding family issues.
4. Based on the above rulings, it was not error for the trial court to deny husband’s request for attorney fees.
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
Husband’s support obligation was increased from $2,065 per month to $5,435 per month.
In the absence of a transcript of the hearing concerning the admissibility of this evidence, we assume the correctness of the trial court’s implicit findings that the witness was a licensed psychologist providing treatment to the Odom family. Rolader, supra,