COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 67793 ETHYL OWENS : : : PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT : JOURNAL ENTRY : v. : AND : : OPINION LEADER NATIONAL INSURANCE : COMPANY, ET AL. : : DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: MAY 25, 1995 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Common Pleas Court, Case No. CV-254659. JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Appellant Ethyl Owens: Paul Mancino, Jr., Esq. 75 Public Square, Suite 1016 Cleveland, Ohio 44113-2098 For Appellee Leader National Michael A. Pohl, Esq. Ins. Co.: John T. McLandrich, Esq. Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder Co.,LPA 100 Franklin's Row 34305 Solon Road Cleveland, Ohio 44139 For Appellee Jeffery Insurance Randal L. Strickler, Esq. Agency, Inc.: 16 W. Church Street P.O. Box 543 Milan, Ohio 44846 SWEENEY, JAMES D., P.J.: Plaintiff-appellant Ethyl Owens appeals the trial court's decision which affirmed an arbitration award in favor of defendants-appellees Leader National Insurance Company and the Jeffrey Insurance Agency, Inc. On July 2, 1993, the appellant filed suit against both of the appellees. The court referred the matter to arbitration on December 20, 1993. The arbitrators filed their report and award on April 1, 1994; and on April 22, 1994, the appellant filed exceptions to the arbitrators' report. The appellees filed a brief in opposition, and the court set a date for hearing. The docket reflects both that on July 1, 1994, a hearing was held on the appellant's exceptions, and that the court denied the exceptions. On July 5, 1994, the court ordered that any appeal from the arbitration award must be filed by July 15, 1994. As no appeal was filed, the court, on July 26, 1994, entered judgment. The appellant subsequently filed a narrative statement of the proceedings, and an appeal to this court. The appellant sets forth two assignments of error: I PLAINTIFF WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHEN THE COURT MADE A DETERMINATION ON DISPUTED FACTS WITHOUT CONDUCTING A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER A SETTLEMENT HAD BEEN REACHED BY THE PARTIES. II - 3 - THE COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR IN SHORTENING THE TIME TO FILE AN APPEAL DE NOVO AFTER THE OVERRULING OF EXCEPTIONS TO THE REPORT AND AWARD OF THE ARBITRATORS. Exceptions to an arbitration may be filed pursuant to Loc.R. 29, part VI. The rule states: Exceptions and Reasons Therefor for Arbitrator Misconduct (d) Any party may file exceptions with the Clerk of Courts, at the office of the Arbitration Commissioner, from the decision of the Board of Arbitration within thirty (30) days from the filing of the report and award for either or both of the following reasons and for no other: (1) That the Arbitrators misbehaved themselves in the conduct of the case. (2) That the action of one or more of the Arbitrators was procured by misconduct or corruption. Copies of said exceptions shall be served upon each arbitrator and the Arbitration Commissioner within 48 hours after filing and shall be forthwith assigned for hearing before the Administrative Judge or a judge assigned by him to conduct a hearing. If such exceptions are sustained, the report of the Board shall be vacated by the Court and the case set for trial. The filing of exceptions shall toll the running of the thirty (30) day appeal period provided in (A) above until a determination of the exceptions by the Court. We note that as of April 1, 1994, the rule was changed to reflect the change in title of the Arbitration Commissioner to that of ADR Administrator. - 4 - In Ruper v. Smith (1983), 12 Ohio App.3d 44, this court held that exceptions to an arbitration must be taken through established procedures, and that the rule requires that service of the exceptions be made upon the arbitrators and on the Arbitration Commissioner within 48 hours after filing. The proof of service segment of the defendant's motion failed to indicate that the necessary service was made, and the court held that the exceptions were not properly before the court. The court determined that neither the court's failure to hold a hearing on the motion nor the court's judgment constituted error. The situation before this court is similar. The appellant herein has failed to serve the ADR Administrator, and neither the court's alleged failure to hold a hearing on the motion nor the court's judgment constituted error. Since the decision in Ruper, supra, is binding upon this court, S.Ct.R.Rep.Op. 2(G)(2), the appellant's assignments of error are overruled. Assuming arguendo that the appellant had properly served the ADR Administrator, neither of the assignments of error advanced by the appellant would have been well taken. In the first assignment of error, the appellant asserts that the trial court failed to hold a hearing. However, the docket reflects that a hearing was set, and also reflects that a hearing was held. Even the appellant's narrative statement of the proceedings begins, "This matter came on before the Honorable Carolyn B. Friedland, Judge for the Court of - 5 - Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County on June 30, 1994." The record is devoid of evidence that the trial court failed to hold a hearing, and the first assignment of error would have been overruled. In the second assignment of error, the appellant contends that the court erred when it shortened the appellant's time for filing the appeal de novo. It is clear from the record that the trial court did not shorten the time for filing the appeal, but merely applied the local rule. As previously noted, Loc.R. 29, part VI states that the filing of exceptions shall toll the running of the thirty (30) day appeal period until a determination of the exceptions by the court. Here, the time ran from April 1, 1994, the date of the award, until April 22, 1994, the date the exceptions were filed. A total of twenty-one days elapsed. Time began to run again after the hearing, July 5, 1994, and expired by court order on July 15, 1994. The court in ordering these ten days actually permitted the appellant a total of 31 days in which to file the appeal de novo. The second assignment of error would also have been overruled. Judgment affirmed. - 6 - It is ordered that appellees recover of appellant their 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. Exceptions. PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, J., and JAMES M. PORTER, J., CONCUR. JAMES D. SWEENEY 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 .