COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 61309 CLEVELAND SELFRELIANCE CREDIT : UNION, INC., : : Plaintiff-Appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : and : OPINION ROBERT L. GOFF, ET AL., : : Defendants-Appellants : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : AUGUST 27, 1992 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from : Common Pleas Court : Case No. 087,188 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : _______________________ APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: L. Stewart Hastings, Jr. 7th Floor - Bulkley Building Cleveland, Ohio 44115 For defendants-appellants: Paul Mancino, Jr. 75 Public Square Building Suite 1016 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 -2- NAHRA, P.J.: Robert and Lillian Goff appeal from the trial court's denial of their Civ. R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. Cleveland Selfreliance Credit Union, appellee, ("CSCU") brought a foreclosure action against the Goffs, among others, arising out of their default on a promissory note secured by a mortgage deed. The Goffs' answer stated that their liability to CSCU had been settled in a prior lawsuit. The Goffs also filed a counterclaim against CSCU for the attorney fees they would incur because of CSCU's breach of the prior settlement. CSCU moved for summary judgment based on the defendants' default on the loan. CSCU agreed to bifurcate the Goffs' counterclaim so as to allow the foreclosure to go forward. The trial court granted summary judgment and ordered foreclosure in March, 1989. It also bifurcated the Goffs' counterclaim. The judgment entry included handwritten changes, primarily to dates and names of parties. The Goffs did not appeal this decision. The Goffs dismissed their counterclaim almost eighteen months later. Soon thereafter they filed a motion for relief from the trial court's March, 1989 judgment entry which granted summary judgment to CSCU. The trial court held a hearing on the motion and denied it. The Goffs brought this timely appeal. I. Appellant's first assignment of error reads as follows: THE COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR IN OVERRULING THE MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT DUE TO THE FACT THAT -3- THE JUDGMENT ENTRY HAD BEEN CHANGED WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OR NOTICE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR THEIR ATTORNEY. A motion for relief from judgment under Civ. R. 60(B) is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and that court's ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion. (Citations omitted.) Griffey v. Rajan (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 75, 77. To prevail on a motion brought under Civ. R. 60(B), the movant must demonstrate that: (1) the party has a meritorious defense or claim to present if relief is granted; (2) the party is entitled to relief under one of the grounds stated in Civ. R. 60(B)(1) through (5); and (3) the motion is made within a reasonable time, and, where the grounds of relief are Civ. R. 60(B)(1), (2) or (3), not more than one year after the judgment, order or proceeding was entered or taken. GTE Automatic Electric v. ARC Industries (1976), 47 Ohio St.2d 146, paragraph two of the syllabus. Appellants argue that their motion for relief from judgment should have been granted because the final judgment entry was changed after it was submitted without notice to the parties. Appellants do not detail what the changes were or how the changes affected them at all. The changes made to the judgment entry appear to have been made by the court. The changes consist of corrections of dates, parties, and amounts. There are no changes which affect the substance of the entry. If relief were granted, the outcome of the case would not change. Since appellants have failed to demonstrate that they have a meritorious claim if relief were granted, the trial court's ruling must be affirmed. -4- II. Appellants' second assignment of error reads as follows: THE COURT MADE A PREJUDICIAL ERROR IN NOT GRANTING RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT DUE TO THE OTHER ERRORS AND IRREGULARITY IN THE PROCEEDINGS. Appellants claim that reversal is warranted due to other errors and irregularities, including lack of service of the second amended complaint and the referee's report. "In the absence of plain error, an appellate court will not consider an issue not raised below." Lakewood v. All Structures, Inc. (1983), 13 Ohio App.3d 115, paragraph two of the syllabus. The record does not reflect that appellants objected to any of these errors, at a time when they could have been corrected. There is also no indication that these errors affected appellants' substantial rights. Appellants' second assignment of error is overruled. Affirmed. -5- It is ordered that appellee recover of appellants its 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. SPELLACY, J., and BLACKMON, J., CONCUR. JOSEPH J. NAHRA PRESIDING 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. .