OH - Spencer and Monique Tepe found shot to death at home 2 children unharmed, Columbus, 30 December 2025 *ex-husband arrested*

[stmichael]

It is being reported by several publications including NY Post that it was a “clerical error” that reopened the divorce. This truly could have been what pushed him over the edge if he was already having issues. ‘Clerical error’ reopened Tepe-McKee divorce case months before killings

Agreed.

The divorce by all indicators seemed clean. He kept the house (that was in his name), there was no alimony, kids, support of any kind (the mutual ROs were formality) . She wanted out fast and paid for a private judge. But it was quick and almost a decade in this past.

It seemed more of an emotional keynote in this miserable "grievance collectors" life and had things been spiraling for him the fact that he got some notice that the divorce was "refiled" would likely set him off or at least put Monique on his emotional radar again.

 

[su5ie]

Interesting, how do they know he "displayed or brandished" a firearm, there are four charges for use and one for the display?

Maybe there is audio of him waking them up and ordering them about while pointing a weapon

 

[stmichael]

Interesting, how do they know he "displayed or brandished" a firearm, there are four charges for use and one for the display?

The brandishing charge is a formality. They will throw the book or pile on the technical charges in a case like this (helps restrict bail etc.) You have to "brandish" a firearm to discharge it, so it's a technical charge in a slew of charges they can stack.

 

[Voidz]

Agreed.

The divorce by all indicators seemed clean. He kept the house (that was in his name), there was no alimony, kids, support of any kind (the mutual ROs were formality) . She wanted out fast and paid for a private judge. But it was quick and almost a decade in this past.

It seemed more of an emotional keynote in this miserable "grievance collectors" life and had things been spiraling for him the fact that he got some notice that the divorce was "refiled" would likely set him off or at least put Monique on his emotional radar again.

I imagine he was already in a bad place with his work situation and maybe the alleged clerical error triggered him to go into spiral. He possibly looked her up and became fixated on how perfect her life seemed and how happy she was. An obsession that allowed him to not think about the other stuff going on his life. No evidence he was watching the wedding video over and over, but I believe he did.

Maybe he started online stalking Spencer too - I think seeing the staff profile of him on the dentist website may have been like a punch in the face. Instead of a typical headshot, it is a beautiful photo of the happy couple and their children. The perfect family.

I’m looking forward to hearing about the searches on his computer and phones.

 

[Cassie P]

Agreed.

The divorce by all indicators seemed clean. He kept the house (that was in his name), there was no alimony, kids, support of any kind (the mutual ROs were formality) . She wanted out fast and paid for a private judge. But it was quick and almost a decade in this past.

It seemed more of an emotional keynote in this miserable "grievance collectors" life and had things been spiraling for him the fact that he got some notice that the divorce was "refiled" would likely set him off or at least put Monique on his emotional radar again.

I agree, it could have been a piece of what triggered him. He was spiraling out of control in his personal life. He had also been obsessive and harboring ill will towards others. (A double murder does not come out of the blue, there is a back story.)

The mistaken divorce re-filing could have helped push him over the edge.

 

[Cassie P]

The brandishing charge is a formality. They will throw the book or pile on the technical charges in a case like this (helps restrict bail etc.) You have to "brandish" a firearm to discharge it, so it's a technical charge in a slew of charges they can stack.

This is my read, the prosecutor is throwing the book at him. To explain why the DP is on the table.

 

[su5ie]

I imagine he was already in a bad place with his work situation and maybe the alleged clerical error triggered him to go into spiral. He possibly looked her up and became fixated on how perfect her life seemed and how happy she was. An obsession that allowed him to not think about the other stuff going on his life. No evidence he was watching the wedding video over and over, but I believe he did.

Maybe he started online stalking Spencer too - I think seeing the staff profile of him on the dentist website may have been like a punch in the face. Instead of a typical headshot, it is a beautiful photo of the happy couple and their children. The perfect family.

I’m looking forward to hearing about the searches on his computer and phones.

I think you might be onto something here

What if MM was looking for a dentist and came across the clinic Spencer worked for and happened upon the smiling monique with her handsome husband and two beautiful children

It may have reignited a resentment and rage

Just seems too much out of the blue for something not to be the trigger, prehaps he needed an implant or root canal ????

He could have followed Spencer home from work on a dark evening and found their home that way

 

[Cassie P]

I believe that’s the charge for whether you use the firearm or simply brandish it. Obviously, the state’s position is he fired the gun so by definition he used it. The charge is more about the fact that he used a silencer than brandishing a gun. What a monster.

I think brandishing refers to intimidating or instilling fear in the victim? Using it in a menacing way?

 

[PipeyRella]

IIRC his attorney in Illinois said he planned to represent himself in Ohio.

Lmao. Of COURSE he is

 

[Cassie P]

I think you might be onto something here

What if MM was looking for a dentist and came across the clinic Spencer worked for and happened upon the smiling monique with her handsome husband and two beautiful children

It may have reignited a resentment and rage

Just seems too much out of the blue for something not to be the trigger, prehaps he needed an implant or root canal ????

He could have followed Spencer home from work on a dark evening and found their home that way

It is more likely MM was stalking her silently or actually harassing her.

 

[ttjo]

I agree, it could have been a piece of what triggered him. He was spiraling out of control in his personal life. He had also been obsessive and harboring ill will towards others. (A double murder does not come out of the blue, there is a back story.)

The mistaken divorce re-filing could have helped push him over the edge.

There is a post a while back that says no new divorce notice was sent to either party.
In case it got missed here it is again:
Post in thread 'ARREST MADE - EX-HUSBAND OH - Spencer and Monique Tepe found shot to death at home 2 children unharmed, Columbus, 30 December 2025'
ARREST MADE - EX-HUSBAND OH - Spencer and Monique Tepe found shot to death at home 2 children unharmed, Columbus, 30 December 2025

 

[stmichael]

I imagine he was already in a bad place with his work situation and maybe the alleged clerical error triggered him to go into spiral. He possibly looked her up and became fixated on how perfect her life seemed and how happy she was. An obsession that allowed him to not think about the other stuff going on his life. No evidence he was watching the wedding video over and over, but I believe he did.

Maybe he started online stalking Spencer too - I think seeing the staff profile of him on the dentist website may have been like a punch in the face. Instead of a typical headshot, it is a beautiful photo of the happy couple and their children. The perfect family.

I’m looking forward to hearing about the searches on his computer and phones.

Yes. Exactly.

At the very least it would put Monique on his radar again. Maybe he started looking her up. Sees that she's living her dream life he could never give her (finally has kids, happy etc.). Then a landslide of fixation and resentment that quickly would build. Possibly even throw in substance abuse or an underlying mental illness (asides from him being an obvious "psycho").

 

[tricia]

THIS SATURDAY = GUARDIAN ZOOM MADNESS
It’s EPIC.
It’s 8 HOURS.
It’s our MONTHLY GUARDIAN ZOOM CALL — and you’re invited!
Saturday, January 17
12 NOON – 8 PM Eastern
(Yes, really. No, you don’t have to stay the whole time )

YOU MUST REGISTER FIRST — CLICK HERE to register
Pro tip: You do NOT have to use your real name. Your Websleuths username is perfect.
WHAT WILL WE TALK ABOUT?

(Here are a few ideas but we can talk about almost anything you want)​

What case drives you absolutely crazy — and why
What changes you’d like to see on Websleuths
Your brush with fame (we KNOW you have one)
And lots more laughs, surprises, and great conversation

FREE STUFF!​

We’ll be giving away FREE Guardian memberships
You can nominate Websleuths members you think deserve one — because kindness matters.

REGISTER HERE for the call
Want to become a Guardian? CLICK HERE — it’s easy and only $3/month

Come and go as you please.
Pop in. Pop out. Stay 10 minutes or all day — it’s totally up to you.

Check out the screenshot from our last Guardian call…
See? We’re a fun bunch! That's me in the middle in the "Alice" square if you are looking at this like the Brady Bunch.

 

[stmichael]

There is a post a while back that says no notice was sent to the parties. In case it got missed here it is again:
Post in thread 'ARREST MADE - EX-HUSBAND OH - Spencer and Monique Tepe found shot to death at home 2 children unharmed, Columbus, 30 December 2025'
ARREST MADE - EX-HUSBAND OH - Spencer and Monique Tepe found shot to death at home 2 children unharmed, Columbus, 30 December 2025

I don't see where it said no one was contacted? It was put on the docket but later removed. There could have been notice, even electronically. It's possible there wasn't and it's a nothing-burger but I just don't see a definitive no here. Seems like more inconclusive reporting but a possible trigger.

Clerical error reopened Ohio newlywed's divorce case just months before slayings: docs

Michael McKee and Monique Tepe officially divorced in May 2017, but the case reportedly received a new hearing that appeared on the docket in June 2025.

nypost.com

McKee and Tepe were married in August 2015 and officially divorced in May 2017, but the case received a new hearing that appeared on the docket in June 2025, according to USA Today.


It showed a trial date set for September, but court officials later confirmed that the revival of the case was a clerical error with the docket number, and the September date was canceled, the paper reported

 

[ttjo]

I don't see where it said no one was contacted? It was put on the docket but later removed. There could have been notice, even electronically. It's possible there wasn't and it's a nothing-burger but I just don't see a definitive no here. Seems like more inconclusive reporting but a possible trigger.

Clerical error reopened Ohio newlywed's divorce case just months before slayings: docs

Michael McKee and Monique Tepe officially divorced in May 2017, but the case reportedly received a new hearing that appeared on the docket in June 2025.

nypost.com

ok let me look what line it is, It said “ no one was noticed” I took that to mean either party wasn't notified ? Maybe I am wrong. ? Ill read it again
Ok here it is post #4732

 

[stmichael]

I think brandishing refers to intimidating or instilling fear in the victim? Using it in a menacing way?

Brandishing is a legal term. Varies by state. In many states or localities. you can not legally brandish a firearm (displaying in an intimidating or aggressive manner), Basically you can't pull a gun on someone in an argument, etc. etc. The display alone plus a threatening context would equate "brandishing".

OH law:

Firearm Specification (ORC § 2941.145):

Adds mandatory prison time if a firearm is displayed, brandished, or used to facilitate an offense, even if the crime doesn't inherently require a gun.

During a Crime: Displaying it while committing another offense

So it's another charge that they will stack on for him. In a case like this they want to pile on as many charges on the Skell. And obviously if they maintain he shot them and prove this in court, this charge can be stacked (since it's the prerequisite action to shooting someone).

 

[stmichael]

I dont think you can do that

ok let me look what line it is, it kind of blended in , It said “ no one was noticed” I took that to men either party wasnt notified ? Maybe I am wrong. ? Ill read it again
Ok here it is post #4732

Ok but what official party privy to the notification is saying "nobody was notified" who said that? and source? Not from a post but from an official source or article at least. Usually a docket notice would be sent to the parties automatically, even to their last email. They may have had one shot out and then quickly cancelled.

 

[Cassie P]

Lmao. Of COURSE he is

Interesting, so we can see his narcissism, ego, inability to read his environment, follow social norms, refusal to accept reality.

 

[ttjo]

Ok but what official party privy to the notification is saying "nobody was notified" who said that? and source? Not from a post but from an official source or article at least.

I understand, My source is only a very credible/ knowledgeable member who I believe is trustworthy . Dont ask me how they would know but I trust the info. No media source or law enforcement.

 

[Cassie P]

Brandishing is a legal term. Varies by state. In many states or localities. you can not legally brandish a firearm (displaying in an intimidating or aggressive manner), Basically you can't pull a gun on someone in an argument, etc. etc. The display alone plus a threatening context would equate "brandishing".

OH law:

Firearm Specification (ORC § 2941.145):

Adds mandatory prison time if a firearm is displayed, brandished, or used to facilitate an offense, even if the crime doesn't inherently require a gun.

During a Crime: Displaying it while committing another offense

So it's another charge that they will stack on for him. In a case like this they want to pile on as many charges on the Skell.

So the brandishing part doesn't necessarily mean the gun was used to instill fear or intimidate the victim?