COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 67350 LOVE INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. : : Plaintiff-Appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION F B M MANAGEMENT CO. : : Defendant-Appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: MARCH 23, 1995 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: CIVIL APPEAL FROM THE CLEVELAND MUNICIPAL COURT CASE NO. 93 CVF 02937 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: KEITH D. WEINER (#002900) Keith D. Weiner & Associates Co., L.P.A. 75 Public Square, Suite 600 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For Defendant-Appellant: FBM MANAGEMENT CO., pro se FBM Management Co. 1127 Euclid Avenue, Suite 800 Cleveland, OH 44115 - 2 - 2 SPELLACY, J.: Defendant-appellant FBM Management, Inc. ("appellant") appeals the verdict of the trial court in favor of plaintiff-appellee Love Insurance Agency in an action based on an account for insurance services. Appellant assigns the following error for review: THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN THAT THE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROVE NECESSARY FACTS IN ORDER TO FIND THE DEFENDANT LIABLE BASED UPON THE BASIC TENANTS AND REQUIREMENTS OF ITS CONTRACTUAL POLICY OF INSURANCE IN THAT IT FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD ANY PECUNIARY INTEREST, FINANCIAL INTEREST, OR ANY INTEREST WHATSO- EVER, IN THE INSURANCE CONTRACT FOR WHICH IT COULD RECEIVE AND/OR OBTAIN A FINANCIAL BENE- FIT IN THE EVENT THAT DESTRUCTION AND/OR A CATASTROPHE OCCURRED TO THE INSURED PREMISES; FURTHER, THAT THE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO ESTAB- LISH THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD ANY INTEREST WHATSOEVER, IN THE SEVERAL INSURED ENTITIES OTHER THAN THAT IT WAS A MANAGING COMPANY AND NEGOTIATED THE CONTRACTUAL BENEFITS FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE SEVERAL ENTITIES JOINTLY FOR THEIR MUTUAL BENEFIT; FURTHER, THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ARRIVING AT THE MONETARY VERDICT AND CAUSING JUDGMENT TO BE RENDERED IN FAVOR OF SAID PLAINTIFF IN THAT ANY CALCULATIONS WERE ERRONEOUS AND UNJUST AND WHICH PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROVE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE EVEN CAUSING THE TRIER OF FACT TO ARRIVE AT A DIFFERENT VERDICT WHICH WAS NOT PROVEN BY A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE BY PLAINTIFF HEREIN WHICH CLEARLY ESTABLISHED CONFUSION ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF IN ITS PLEADING AND BY THE TRIER OF FACT IN MISCALCULATING IN ARRIVING AT THE MONETARY VERDICT WHICH IT DID. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. - 3 - 3 I. Love Insurance Agency filed a complaint in which it averred appellant owed $5,482.35 for insurance services. On March 29, 1994, trial was held in Cleveland Municipal Court. The trial court found in Love Insurance Agency's favor. Judgment was rendered against appellant for $4,487.25 plus costs. II. In its assignment of error and in its argument in support of the assignment of error, appellant relies on testimony and evidence it avers were admitted during trial. There is no transcript of the proceedings, statement of the evidence, or agreed statement of the case before this court. See App.R. 9(B), (C), and (D). It is the appellant's burden to provide an adequate record to this court demonstrating the claimed error. Baker v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1989), 61 Ohio App.3d 59, 62. The appellant must show error by reference to matters in the record. Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199. When portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to pass upon and thus, as to those assigned errors, the court has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court's proceedings, and affirm. Id. Because there is no record before this court upon which appellant's appeal can be evaluated, the trial court's proceedings are presumed regular and valid. We must affirm. - 4 - 4 Appellant's assignment of error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. - 5 - 5 It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant 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 Cleveland Municipal 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. PATTON, C.J., and DYKE, J., CONCUR. LEO M. SPELLACY 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. .