COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 67552 MERRICK CHEVROLET COMPANY : : : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : AND vs. : : OPINION THOMAS S. WATSON, JR., ET AL. : : : : Defendant-Appellants: : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: MAY 25, 1995 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Berea Municipal Court Case No. 91-CVF-1989 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: BRIAN J. ESSI Suite 512 The Park Building 140 Public Square Cleveland, Ohio 44114 For Defendant-Appellants: REGINALD N. MAXTON Suite 400 The Lincoln Building 1367 East Sixth Street Cleveland, Ohio 44114 - 2 - O'DONNELL, J.: Appellants Thomas S. Watson, Jr. and Watson, Rice & Co. Inc., a Washington D.C. Professional Corporation, appeal from the June 6, 1994 order of the Berea Municipal Court finding each had failed to comply with a previous court order requiring appearance at offices of opposing counsel and imposing a fine and jail term on Thomas S. Watson Jr. and issuing a warrant for his arrest. Because we find no merit to the appeal, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. The issues in this case arose when Thomas S. Watson Jr., an employee of Watson, Rice & Co. Inc., leased a 1985 Cadillac from appellee Merrick Chevrolet Company and failed to make payments on the lease, which resulted in a judgment of $2,393.60 plus interest against both Thomas S. Watson Jr. and Watson, Rice & Co. Inc. Appellants did not appeal that judgment. Thereafter appellee, in efforts to collect the judgment, undertook proceedings in aid of execution, but appellants failed to respond to any of these efforts. Appellee then filed a motion to compel appellants to appear for deposition, which the court granted on December 28, 1993, requiring appearance at offices of Brian J. Essi on January 4, 1994. Deponent Robert Rice of Watson, Rice & Co. Inc., appeared on January 4, 1994 but failed to produce requested records and refused to answer relevant questions. - 3 - Thereafter, on January 21, 1994, appellants, through Attorney Michael Troy Watson, brother of Thomas S. Watson Jr., sought a protective order. On March 1, 1994, the trial court held a hearing on appellee's motion to compel and appellants' motion for protective order. The court denied the protective order and found appellants in contempt of court for failure to comply with earlier orders of the court, but afforded each an opportunity to purge that contempt by producing requested documents and appearing for deposition at offices of Attorney Brian J. Essi prior to April 15, 1994. Because appellants failed to purge the contempt, on June 6, 1994, the trial court ordered Thomas S. Watson Jr. to pay a fine of $750.00 and to serve a three day jail sentence, and issued a warrant for his arrest. Both appellants have appealed and raise one assignment of error for our review. I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE APPELLANTS/ DEFENDANTS GUILTY OF CONTEMPT WHEN NO RECORD (TRANSCRIPT) OF PROCEEDINGS WERE KEPT AND NO SPECIFIC, CLEAR FINDINGS WERE MADE AS TO ACTS WHICH WERE FOUND TO BE IN CONTEMPT. Appellants believe that the trial court improperly made a finding of contempt because it denied due process rights, failed to make a transcript of proceedings, and failed to make separate findings as to the acts which formed the basis of the contempt. - 4 - Appellee submits that the finding of contempt should be affirmed because the June 6, 1994 journal entry was based on failure to comply with an earlier order of the court requiring appearance at offices of counsel Brian J. Essi for purposes of deposition. The issue for our court to consider, then, is whether the trial court erred in promulgating the June 6, 1994 order which imposed a fine and jail term for Thomas S. Watson, Jr. We note it is an appellant's obligation to provide a record which exemplifies the claimed error, and in the absence of such evidence, this court will presume regularity of the proceedings below. See Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199; Ostrander v. Parker-Fallis (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 72. App.R. 9(C) governs statements of the evidence or proceedings when no report was made or when the transcript is unavailable and states in relevant part: "(C) If no report of the evidence or proceedings at a hearing or trial was made, or if a transcript is unavailable, the appellant may prepare a statement of the evidence or proceedings from the best available means, including the appellant's recollection. ***." Since there is no transcript of proceedings and since appellant failed to provide a statement of evidence pursuant to App.R. 9(C), our review of the record shows a consistent judicial effort to encourage appellants to appear for deposition. We find no ambiguity between the March, 1994 order of the court which required a deposition appearance at offices of opposing counsel - 5 - prior to April 15, 1994, and the subsequent finding by the trial court that appellants failed to comply with that order on June 6, 1994. Hence, there is no merit to the claim that specific conduct which constitutes the contempt is lacking. Our conclusion is fortified by the fact that findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Civ.R. 52 are unnecessary in a contempt proceeding. See State ex rel. Ventrone v. Birkel (1981), 65 Ohio St.2d 10. Further, the court in Beaver Township v. Garver (December 20, 1991), Mahoning App. No. 90 CA 158, unreported, stated: "R.C. 2705.05 simply requires that the court determine whether the accused is guilty of the contempt charge. There is no requirement that the trial court file findings of facts supporting his final judgment. We find that in the indirect contempt procedure there is no requirement that the trial judge recite in his final judgment entry the facts supporting his finding." Our review of the record reveals in March of 1994, the trial court made a specific finding of contempt and afforded appellants the opportunity to purge themselves of the contempt charge. Because appellants failed to comply with that order, the court imposed sentence on June 6, 1994. We find no due process violations appearing from the record provided to us by appellants in this case. We therefore conclude the trial court did not err in promulgating the June 6, 1994 order because a court speaks through its journal and the entry set forth with specificity the - 6 - act of omission which resulted in the court's finding of contempt. Accordingly, the judgment of the court is affirmed. Judgment affirmed. - 7 - It is ordered that appellee(s) recover of appellant(s) 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 Berea 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. PORTER, P.J., and DYKE, J., CONCUR JUDGE TERRENCE O'DONNELL 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- .