COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT 
                        COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 
                             NO. 67963
SHELLEY V. FRY                :     ACCELERATED CASE
                              :
        Plaintiff-Appellee    :
                              :      JOURNAL ENTRY
     -vs-                     :           AND
                              :         OPINION
RUSSELL S. BENSING            :
                              :        PER CURIAM
        Defendant-Appellant   :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
  OF DECISION:                JUNE 15, 1995        
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:      CIVIL APPEAL FROM THE 
                              JUVENILE COURT
                              CASE NO. 8012512
JUDGMENT:                     REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:                           
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee:       JOHN D. ZOLLER (#0034403)
                              1010 EAST OHIO BUILDING
                              1717 EAST NINTH STREET
                              CLEVELAND, OHIO  44114-2803
For Defendant-Appellant:      PAUL M. FRIEDMAN (#0009722)
                              SUITE 300 - C.A.C. BUILDING
                              1148 EUCLID AVENUE
                              CLEVELAND, OHIO  4411
                               - 2 -                                           2
PER CURIAM:  
     Russell Bensing appeals from the dismissal of his "application
to determine  custody" of  Vera Fry  and raises  one assignment  of
      1
error:
          THE  TRIAL  COURT   ERRED  IN  DISMISSING   THE
          APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF CUSTODY.  
     After Bensing  filed a  complaint to  determine custody  under
R.C. 2151.27, the  juvenile court sua sponte dismissed  the action,
stating that:
             THE  COURT  FINDS  THAT ON  MARCH  13, 1992,
          SIMILAR MOTIONS WERE FILED BY THE DEFENDANT AND
          THAT SAID  MOTIONS WERE DISMISSED BY  THE COURT
          ON 4-15-92.   THE COURT FURTHER FINDS  THAT THE
          DEFENDANT  HAS  ACKNOWLEDGED, IN  HIS PLEADINGS
          FILED WITH  THE COURT  THAT  HE HAS  PREVIOUSLY
          SURRENDERED HIS PARENTAL  RIGHTS BY  CONSENTING
          TO  AN ADOPTION  AND  THAT  SAID  ADOPTION  WAS
          GRANTED  BY THE  PROBATE  DIVISION ON  2-19-87.
          THE COURT FURTHER FINDS THAT  BY REASON OF SAID
          ADOPTION,  THE  DEFENDANT  LACKS   STANDING  TO
          REQUEST CUSTODY  OF THE  CHILD HEREIN  AND THAT
          THE DECISION ISSUED BY THIS COURT ON 4-15-92 IS
          RES JUDICATA ON THIS ISSUE.   THE COURT FURTHER
          FINDS  THAT  BY  REASON OF  SAID  ADOPTION, THE
          JURISDICTION IN  THIS MATTER  TERMINATED ON  2-
          19-87.  
          IT  IS  THEREFORE   ORDERED  THAT   DEFENDANT'S
          APPLICATION  FOR CUSTODY  AND  ALL MOTIONS  ARE
          DISMISSED  AND  DENIED  WITH PREJUDICE  AT  THE
          DEFENDANT'S COSTS.  
     We find the juvenile court erred in  dismissing the action.  A
trial court's ability to  dismiss an action sua sponte  is limited.
Trial  courts  may dismiss  an  action  sua sponte  for  failure to
     1
        Bensing misnamed his complaint an  application.  See R.C.
2151.27.  
                               - 3 -                                           3
prosecute or failure to  comply with court rules or orders.  Tokles
& Son, Inc. v.  Midwestern Indemn. Co.  (1992), 65  Ohio St.3d 621,
632.   Trial courts may also dismiss an  action sua sponte for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction.  Nord  Community Mental Health Ctr.
v.  Lorain  Cty.  (1994),  93  Ohio  App.3d 363,  365.    Bensing's
complaint  falls  into none  of  these  categories.   Although  the
juvenile  court  found that  it  lacked jurisdiction,  it possessed
subject-matter jurisdiction under  R.C. 2151.23(A)(2) and  2151.27.
     Accordingly, Bensing's assignment of error is well taken.  
     Judgment reversed and remanded.  
                               - 4 -                                           4
     This cause is  reversed and  remanded for further  proceedings
consistent with this journal entry and opinion.  
     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.  
 LEO M. SPELLACY, PRESIDING JUDGE
                        TERRENCE J. O'DONNELL, JUDGE
 DIANE KARPINSKI, 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
.