COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 60499 : WILLIAM C. BOWMAN : : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : and -vs- : : OPINION CHARLES LEVIN : : : Defendant-Appellant : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: MAY 7, 1992 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Lyndhurst Municipal Court Case No. 89-CVF-1751 JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: __________________________ APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant: WILLIAM C. BOWMAN, pro se MORRIS LEVIN, ESQ. 1890 SOM Center Road Morris Levin Co., L.P.A. Mayfield Heights, Ohio 44124 55 Public Square, #1010 Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1901 - 2 - HARPER, J.: Defendant-appellant, Charles Levin, appeals from the judgment rendered by the Lyndhurst Municipal Court in which the court approved and adopted a referee's report. A careful review of the record compels reversal and remand of the action. Plaintiff-appellee, William C. Bowman, operates a Sunoco Gas Station and also performs repair services. Appellant delivered his automobile to appellee for a tune-up. According to appellee, he advised appellant of the cost of the tune-up which included a change of spark plugs, wires, carburetor check-up, compression testing and general ignition repair. All of these services were performed on or about July 25, 1989. Compression testing revealed low compression in one cylinder. However, appellee proceeded to tune up appellant's vehicle. Appellee's position was that the low compression need not be fixed prior to a tune up because such repairs are more extensive and costly. Appellee alerted appellant to the low compression problem when appellant arrived to pick up his vehicle. Appellee also presented a bill in the amount of $144.45 to appellant. Appellant paid for the services by credit card. Appellant's father offered that the tune up was not completed in accordance with standard procedures at the hearing before the referee. This non-conformance prompted appellant to 1/ stop payment of appellant's bill. The referee filed his initial report on June 8, 1990, finding a breach of contract. The trial court approved the report on July 30, 1990 in light of "no objections having been 1/ The statement of facts are drawn from an App. R. 9(E) Statement of the Evidence. - 3 - filed". In actuality, appellant filed objections to the referee's report on June 19, 1990. A nunc pro tunc report of referee was filed on July 6, 1990 and later adopted by the trial court on August 17, 1990. This appeal followed. Appellant assigns the following errors for review. "1. The trial court committed reversible error in approving the Report of the Referee filed July 6, 1990. "2. The trial Court committed reversible error in granting judgment for plaintiff on plaintiff's Complaint. "3. The trial Court committed reversible error in granting judgment for plaintiff on defendant's Counterclaim." The appellant, in his first assignment of error, argues that the referee's report failed to comply with Civ. R. 53. Specifically, he argues that the report did not contain sufficient factual information to support a recommendation that appellant breached his contract with appellee. Appellant thereafter argues in his remaining two errors that the trial court's rulings are against the weight of the evidence. Trial courts are obliged to carefully and critically review the reports of their referees. Normandy Place Assoc. v. Beyer (1982), 2 Ohio St. 3d 102. The mandatory review can only be accomplished when compliance exists with Civ. R. 53(E) which requires that a referee's report contain factual information sufficient to support the referee's recommendations. Loque v. Nolte (1978), 60 Ohio App. 2d 227. See, Janmohammadi v. Dicesare (June 21, 1990), Cuyahoga App. No. 57006, unreported; Carik v. - 4 - Bray (Mar. 2, 1989), Cuyahoga App. No. 54845, unreported, reversed and remanded on other grounds in 52 Ohio St. 3d 35. "[W]hen a referee's report contains a conclusion regarding an issue in the case, the facts that lead to that conclusion must also be included in the report." Nolte v. Nolte (1978), 60 Ohio App. 2d 227, 230. The court, therefore, independently analyzes the facts in the underlying dispute to determine the correctness of the decision. See Ankrom v. Ankrom (1985), 30 Ohio App. 3d 47. A referee's report is insufficient as a matter of law if it contains unfounded conclusions. Taylor v. Smith (1984), 22 Ohio App. 3d 38, paragraph two of the syllabus. In the case sub judice, the referee's report set forth the following "fact" and law. "FACT: Non payment for service rendered. "LAW: Breach of contract." The referee's report in the instant appeal contained a conclusion regarding an issue critical to appellant's claim. The referee's report, however, failed to provide any facts whatsoever that were capable of independent analysis by the trial court to aid its determination that the conclusion was correct. The referee's report, is, therefore, insufficient as a matter of law. The trial court's judgment entry is hereby declared void. Judgment reversed and cause remanded. - 5 - This cause is reversed and remanded. It is, therefore, considered that said appellant recover of said appellee his costs herein. It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said 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. Exceptions. NAHRA, J., CONCURS; DAVID T. MATIA, C.J., CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY. SARA J. HARPER JUDGE N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announcement of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .