COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 61322 : ACCELERATED DOCKET ADRIENNE LEGGON : : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellant : : and -vs- : : OPINION MICHAEL LEGGON : : : Defendant-Appellee : PER CURIAM : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: OCTOBER 17, 1991 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: CIVIL APPEAL FROM THE COMMON PLEAS COURT CASE NO. D-183072 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: __________________________ APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellant: NELLI JOHNSON #355 The Arcade 401 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114 For Defendant-Appellee: MICHAEL TROY WATSON Lincoln Building, Suite 400 1367 East Sixth Street Cleveland, Ohio 44111 -2- PER CURIAM: On November 30, 1988, plaintiff-appellant Adrienne D. Leggon ("appellant") was granted a divorce from defendant-appellee Michael M. Leggon ("appellee"). In the divorce decree, appellant was awarded custody of the parties' minor child and appellee was provided liberal visitation rights. On June 13, 1989, appellee filed a motion to show cause seeking to find appellant in contempt of court for her failure to comply with the visitation order. Appellee also requested attorney fees. On July 20, 1989, appellee filed another motion to show cause and for attorney fees. On August 29, 1990, appellant's private counsel withdrew as her attorney, since the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office agreed to represent her. On September 20, 1990, a hearing on appellee's motions to show cause and requests for attorney fees was conducted before a referee for the Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court./1\ At the hearing, appellee and his counsel appeared, but neither appellant nor the Prosecutor's Office made an appearance. The referee conducted the hearing and received the testimonies of appellee, his mother, and appellee's counsel. /1\ All motions regarding child support filed by either appel- lant or appellee were not addressed at the September 20, 1990 hearing. Apparently, the Prosecutor's Office received no notice of the hearing with respect to the child support issues. -3- On November 30, 1990, the referee filed her report and recommendations. On January 18, 1991, the trial court overruled appellant's objections and adopted the referee's report and recommendations. In its order, the trial court found that appellant was in contempt of court for her failure to comply with the visitation order. Appellant's sentence for ten days was suspended, and she was allowed to purge the contempt order by complying with the trial court's orders. Also, the trial court ordered appellant to pay $2,000 towards appellee's attorney fees. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and subsequently raised the following assignments of error: I. THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT ERRED IN GRANTING DEFENDANT-APPELLEE A JUDGMENT FOR ATTORNEY FEES FOR THE REASON THAT DEFENDANT-APPELLEE'S ATTORNEY DID NOT PROVIDE AN ITEMIZED STATEMENT DESCRIBING THE LEGAL SERVICES RENDERED AND THE TIME FOR SUCH SERVICES. II. THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT ERRED IN GRANTING DEFENDANT-APPELLEE A JUDGMENT FOR ATTORNEY FEES FOR THE REASON THAT THE REFEREE FAILED TO ALLOCATE THE ATTORNEY FEES BETWEEN THE MOTION REGARDING VISITATION ON WHICH THE DEFENDANT- APPELLEE PREVAILED, AND THE CHILD SUPPORT MOTIONS WHICH ARE PENDING IN THE TRIAL COURT. III. THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT ERRED IN GRANTING DEFENDANT-APPELLEE A JUDGMENT BECAUSE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE TRIAL DUE TO NO FAULT OF HER OWN, BECAUSE HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE, THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE, WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE HEARING DATE AND WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE HEARING, AND BECAUSE DEFENDANT-APPELLEE CAUSED THE COURT TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON THREE OCCASIONS WITHOUT FILING THE REQUIRED COURT REQUESTS, AND THEREFORE IT WAS NOT FAIR, AND AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, THAT THE HEARING WENT FORWARD THE ONE TIME THAT PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT DID NOT APPEAR. -4- Appellant's first and second assignments of error will be addressed together. We find that since appellant's objections to the referee's report raised neither of the issues covered by assignments of error one and two, appellant waived her right to raise them on appeal. Civ. R. 53(E)(2); See, Churchill v. Howard (Jul. 15, 1982), Cuyahoga App. No. 43863, unreported. Assuming, arguendo, that appellant did preserve the issues raised in her first two assignments of error, we find her arguments to be without merit. The referee's report clearly reveals that appellee's counsel did submit an itemized bill which was admitted into evidence. Furthermore, the referee specifically found that "the fees set forth on the exhibit were solely for the motions before the court today." The hearing was heard only upon appellee's motions to show cause and for attorney fees. Moreover, appellee's counsel stated in the exhibit that the bill was exclusively for work performed regarding appellant's failure to comply with the visitation order. Appellant's first and second assignments of error are without merit and are overruled. Appellant argues in her third assignment of error that it was error for the hearing to go forward without the presence of herself and the Prosecutor's Office. A review of the referee's report reveals that service of appellee's motions to show cause was duly and properly made and that notice of the September 20, 1990 hearing was mailed to all counsel and to all the parties themselves. The referee -5- specifically noted that the hearing would not address child support issues since proper notice had not been provided on that particular subject. We conclude that it was not error for the referee to proceed with the hearing regarding appellee's motions to show cause. Appellant had sufficient notice of the hearing and ample oppor- tunity to be prepared. Appellant's third assignment of error is not well taken and is overruled. Trial court judgment is affirmed. -6- This cause is affirmed. It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant her costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. JOHN F. CORRIGAN, JUDGE LEO M. SPELLACY, JUDGE PATRICIA BLACKMON, JUDGE N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journaliza- tion, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the Court and time period for review will begin to run. .